Walkaway Scenario (Redux)

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster

JJ do not tell me you don't find it weird that no reward is in place? If you don't find it strange than why? If they had found RG and don't have any clues on what happened then I can see them returning the money to advoid legal issues. [/*]

Tax reasons, and the attorney who handled it wrote an article on it. And, it has happened with other missing person cases.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


The thing is here, there is evidence that is admissible in court, witnesses. It's not ideal, but there is the real possibility of more out there.
[/*]


If I had anything to do with it, I would subpeona the woman who "didn't want to get involved", from one of the shops on Water St.

Only someone who might have been a witness to something would say something like that, and would turn their back on helping with any information that might lead to finding the missing man, who just happens to be Ray Gricar DA from Centre County. Someone who might know the people involved, might have been threatened, might have seen it all.
JMO

[Cinderella]

SJ,

For some reason, I don't think that LE wants to give out information on who the Mystery Woman is.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cinderella
SJ,

For some reason, I don't think that LE wants to give out information on who the Mystery Woman is. [/*]

The woman I was referring to was not the Mystery Woman. She was a shop owner and was supposed to have told investigators or LE that she didn't want to get involved when they were going door to door. If she didn't see anything she could have said she didn't see or hear of anything going on there. To say she didn't want to get involved means (to me) she might have seen or heard something that might have been useful but just didn't want to go there, maybe due to bringing someone down on her head, or the same thing happening to her?

My opinions only.

[Cinderella]

SJ I did see that earlier. It really made me wonder why she was saying that. IIRC, there were two woman who stated that.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
SJ,

For some reason, I don't think that LE wants to give out information on who the Mystery Woman is. [/*]

A number of people know the identity of the the Harrisburg Woman, so it's an open secret in Centre County.

That does not imply that the Harrisburg Woman is the same as the Mystery Woman.

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


A number of people know the identity of the the Harrisburg Woman, so it's an open secret in Centre County.

That does not imply that the Harrisburg Woman is the same as the Mystery Woman. [/*]

One was a nurse with Lewisburg ties and the other in gov. at the time tied into AG.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster


One was a nurse with Lewisburg ties and the other in gov. at the time tied into AG. [/*]

I repeat, a number of people know the identity of the the Harrisburg Woman, so it's an open secret in Centre County. :)

I will also say CB's information did not come from me, proving the above statement.

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


I repeat, a number of people know the identity of the the Harrisburg Woman, so it's an open secret in Centre County. :)

I will also say CB's information did not come from me, proving the above statement. [/*]

There is one thing that bugs me about the nurse. If RG was looking into the Vargas case. Was the nurse a pediatric nurse? If not could she have set RG up with someone who would help him with what he needed in court for the Vargas case?

JKA's friend whom she didn't believe that RG was still bothering with is a possibility butttttttt, was ruled out because she said she didn't see him....... Why no polograph on both ladies??? If they want to solve this case that is what they need to do. Legally I relize they may not be able to do that. If either lady refuses then my brows would raise. If one says I will take the poly and the other says I won't take it then at least they could start to look at something there. It also goes to reason why Lewisburg witnesses have seen a MW.

If they change this case to suspected foul play they would have more legal rights to pursue it. The fact that they won't tells us there has to be a reason. That reason shifts my mind toward MW 2 instead of MW 1. MW 1 carries no political ties to gov. Everyone in charge of the case (those whom control the puppet strings) Not LE is from a gov type job. GO FIGURE!!!!:read:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster


There is one thing that bugs me about the nurse. If RG was looking into the Vargas case. Was the nurse a pediatric nurse? If not could she have set RG up with someone who would help him with what he needed in court for the Vargas case?


He wouldn't be going to a nurse for the Vargas case. It was basically an expert witness case. A biochemist, yes.

Why no polograph on both ladies??? If they want to solve this case that is what they need to do.


Like everyone else, they were not questioned in depth.

[Cloudbuster]

At this point I think everyone needs questioned lol. I think the law protects the criminal and not the victim. The criminal has a 80percent chance of getting away with a crime and the victim has about 20 percent chance of proving anything.:(

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
At this point I think everyone needs questioned lol. I think the law protects the criminal and not the victim. The criminal has a 80percent chance of getting away with a crime and the victim has about 20 percent chance of proving anything.:( [/*]

If you are talking about the involvement an old girlfriend or girlfiends, you are probably not talking about a murder.

[J. J. in Phila]

A small revealation:

I wish I had kept count of courthouse workers or legal professionals who told me they believe he's out there somewhere. One of his better friends and longtime coworker, Centre County Assistant District Attorney Steve Sloane, said all along he thought Ray is alive and well out there somewhere. Steve's not alone, not by a longshot.

http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/5851#comment-7497

It seems that RFG's friends share the view that he walked away.

[Serendipitous1]

A small revealation:

I wish I had kept count of courthouse workers or legal professionals who told me they believe he's out there somewhere. One of his better friends and longtime coworker, Centre County Assistant District Attorney Steve Sloane, said all along he thought Ray is alive and well out there somewhere. Steve's not alone, not by a longshot.

http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/5851#comment-7497

It seems that RFG's friends share the view that he walked away.And yet, to a person, not one of "them" has been able to proffer a reason why Ray Gricar would do that...not one.

[J. J. in Phila]

And yet, to a person, not one of "them" has been able to proffer a reason why Ray Gricar would do that...not one.

Why don't you answer these questions (and anyone else can try):

1. Was it claimed that the reason RFG put the Mini in PEF name was to protect that asset in the event of a lawsuit?

2. In the ten years prior to RFG disappearing, was he ever the defendant in a lawsuit?

3. Are there any seemingly missing assets?

[Serendipitous1]

<Snip>
Why don't you answer these questionsBecause they are immaterial, absent a cogent rationale for the walk away theory. Other than on these threads, it is simply not enough to present the possibility of walk away. It has been amply demonstrated how other theories could be equally possible, if not more probable.

[J. J. in Phila]

Because they are immaterial, absent a cogent rationale for the walk away theory.


Are they?

What would be a standard rationale to walk away? Other than running from the law, of course.

You have not answered them on any thread.

I'll ask those three again:

1. Was it claimed that the reason RFG put the Mini in PEF name was to protect that asset in the event of a lawsuit?

2. In the ten years prior to RFG disappearing, was he ever the defendant in a lawsuit?

3. Are there any seemingly missing assets?

[Serendipitous1]

Neither you or PB, or anyone else, has offered any plausible rationale whatsoever as to why Ray Gricar would abandon his loved ones. Is it possible? Yes, of course. Is it probable? Not nearly. It is only one possible explanation...and not nearly the most probable (with all due respect to your, or PB's, analysis).

[J. J. in Phila]

Neither you or PB, or anyone else, has offered any plausible rationale whatsoever as to why Ray Gricar would abandon his loved ones. Is it possible? Yes, of course. Is it probable? Not nearly. It is only one possible explanation...and not nearly the most probable (with all due respect to your, or PB's, analysis).

First of all, a 46% chance isn't probable. That means there is a 54% chance it wasn't. You'll also note that I did not lower the odds on murder.

Second, it isn't my, or PB's, "analysis." He reported what RFG friends and coworkers think. In some ways, that is a good thing, and in some ways a bad thing.

Now, if you ever decide to answer my questions, a motive might come up. One motive however, is that he fascinated with doing it and decided to try it.

At this point, I'll be more concerned with motive it mean are determined.

[UndertheRadar]

I wish I had kept count of courthouse workers or legal professionals who told me they believe he's out there somewhere.

PB does not state at what point in the last three and a half years courthouse workers and legal professionals made this observation. In the first year or so following the disappearance? Now?

When I first joined this board in June 2006, I thought a walkaway was at least as likely as a murder. Not so anymore.

[J. J. in Phila]

PB does not state at what point in the last three and a half years courthouse workers and legal professionals made this observation. In the first year or so following the disappearance? Now?

When I first joined this board in June 2006, I thought a walkaway was at least as likely as a murder. Not so anymore.

He does cite Sloane "from the start." There were other indications.

In my case, this only deals with the idea that people proximate to RFG think that walkaway is likely, conceivable, something that RFG could to. Something that there would be in character for him to do. The answer is yes. Even early on, the "bar was split" between suicide walkaway.

I've always been more interested in means than in motivation. RFG could have had all the motivation in the world and if the means are not there, he didn't walk away. The key is means.

[Serendipitous1]

The "key" is not means...it is motive. No one has yet uttered a compelling word in support of an intentional disappearance...no one. Could he have done it? Yes...but why? Because he could? Nonsense!

You and PB have been fascinated by the possibility. I can understand that, given that the BPD is more likely to share that part of its investigation with the public. But no one has come forward with a plausible rationale why RG would disappear himself.

Still, it is an intriguing possibility. If he did take a walk, whatever the reason was is the "big secret" I have been looking for...the passkey to "Revelation Range".

[J. J. in Phila]

The "key" is not means...it is motive. No one has yet uttered a compelling word in support of an intentional disappearance...no one. Could he have done it? Yes...but why? Because he could? Nonsense!


If there is no evidence RFG left Lewisburg, he probably didn't. All the motive in the world didn't change that.

Why do people like to hike? Drive small, fast cars? Drive to Cleveland for a baseball game? They answer is, because they enjoy it. That is a possibility, that RFG simply was intrigued by the concept and decided to try it.


You and PB have been fascinated by the possibility. I can understand that, given that the BPD is more likely to share that part of its investigation with the public. But no one has come forward with a plausible rationale why RG would disappear himself.


No, there is a plausible explanation listed above, you just don't like it. There can be others, but since you cannot answer my questions, you may not see it.

I'm fascinated with the possibility, like someone else in this case was fascinated by it, only for one reason. If it happened, there is likely to be evidence of how it happened. If that evidence isn't there, my fascination ends.


Still, it is an intriguing possibility. If he did take a walk, whatever the reason was is the "big secret" I have been looking for...the passkey to "Revelation Range".

It may not. There is a perception that he took a walk, one based on observations of RFG prior to 4/15/05. Those perceptions may explain the "lack of interest" in the case, why MM, etc., are acting the way they are. Those perceptions are not necessarily reality. To cross from perception to reality, the "how" is necessary. Find means, find reality. Fail to find means, toss out perception.

[Cloudbuster]

1. Was it claimed that the reason RFG put the Mini in PEF name was to protect that asset in the event of a lawsuit? Answer came from her and not his side of answering that. A one sided answer.

2. In the ten years prior to RFG disappearing, was he ever the defendant in a lawsuit? unknown but I'd say no.

3. Are there any seemingly missing assets? How would we really know?
__________________

[J. J. in Phila]

1. Was it claimed that the reason RFG put the Mini in PEF name was to protect that asset in the event of a lawsuit? Answer came from her and not his side of answering that. A one sided answer.

2. In the ten years prior to RFG disappearing, was he ever the defendant in a lawsuit? unknown but I'd say no.

3. Are there any seemingly missing assets? How would we really know?
__________________

1. Even if one-sided, the answer is yes. BTW: It does fit that RFG drove the car.

2. Yes, and we've discussed it. Something that would threaten his assets.

3. They key word is seemingly. The answer is yes.

[Cloudbuster]

1. Even if one-sided, the answer is yes. BTW: It does fit that RFG drove the car.

2. Yes, and we've discussed it. Something that would threaten his assets.

3. They key word is seemingly. The answer is yes.

Thanks JJ for letting me know it does fit he drove the car. So thats lines up right to what I have.

On number 3.) Does it mean there is a asset missing? I really need to know, even yes or no will do. It would clarify something important. Thanks!!!!:)

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks JJ for letting me know it does fit he drove the car. So thats lines up right to what I have.

On number 3.) Does it mean there is a asset missing? I really need to know, even yes or no will do. It would clarify something important. Thanks!!!!:)

I would say that, unless there were more substantial expenditures than we've been led to believe, yes. "Missing" might be the correct word. [i]"Unaccounted for"[/u] might explain the situation better.

[Cloudbuster]

Thanks JJ!!!

So these mysterious words I have heard may be worth looking harder at? I will need to relisten harder. Do you think its worth trying?

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks JJ for letting me know it does fit he drove the car. So thats lines up right to what I have.




Just to be clear, it fits because RFG was in the habit of driving the Mini, well prior to his disappearance. RFG purchased the Mini, but put it in PEF's name. He drove it to the extent that TG said, but for the plate, you wouldn't have known that the legal owner was PEF.

That arrangement is consistent with the claim that RFG put the Mini in PEF's name to protect the asset in case he was sued. Asset protection.

JKA noted that, if RFG were sued for something official, the county had liability insurance.

[Cloudbuster]

So Ray was protecting a PERSONAL asset. He wasn't worried about being sued work related it seems. Key here is he wasn't protecting it from PF obviously but from whom???

[J. J. in Phila]

So Ray was protecting a PERSONAL asset. He wasn't worried about being sued work related it seems. Key here is he wasn't protecting it from PF obviously but from whom???

Who could likely have a claim on RFG's personal assets?

In what case were his personal assets threatened previously?

(This is a case of asking the right questions, maybe.)

[Serendipitous1]

J.J. you declared that you think it most likely that RG intentionally disappeared himself. Then, in what can best be described as classic Clintoneeze, you backslide by saying the probability you quoted is less than the sum total of all other explanations. WTF?

PB says (Just Gricar's blog, CDT) that he knows "this case inside and out". And PB spent the vast majority of his Gricar effort in promoting the walkaway theory. But now he says "I'm not saying walkaway". WTF?

Is there any hope that you and/or PB will, in my lifetime, ever get to the point? WTF?

[J. J. in Phila]

J.J. you declared that you think it most likely that RG intentionally disappeared himself. Then, in what can best be described as classic Clintoneeze, you backslide by saying the probability you quoted is less than the sum total of all other explanations.


I've declared that no possibility is the most likely explanation though I give walkaway as being more likely than the other two. If I got any possibility over 50%, I'd say it was the most likely. If I knew that LE looked at the question of how RFG got out of Lewisburg, and found that method, walkaway would jump. If I knew that LE looked at the question of how RFG got out of Lewisburg, and didn't find a method, the ods on murder would jump.


PB says (Just Gricar's blog, CDT) that he knows "this case inside and out". And PB spent the vast majority of his Gricar effort in promoting the walkaway theory. But now he says "I'm not saying walkaway".


Sorry, but I don't agree with you. I think he's been even and has considered suicide (though he's rule that out). He's in a similar situation to me.


Is there any hope that you and/or PB will, in my lifetime, ever get to the point?

Yes, if you go the BPD and asked what they've checked in regard to possible method RFG coud have gotten out of Lewisburg and suggest the check the ones they have not.

[Cloudbuster]

Who could likely have a claim on RFG's personal assets?

In what case were his personal assets threatened previously?

(This is a case of asking the right questions, maybe.)

A ex wife could claim his personal assets, also if he cosigned on any loan for someone.

You could also wonder if he was being blackmailed by someone close to him that he confided in something with that person.

Also a secret ex girlfriend could be a black mailer.

Maybe someone was really putting the preasure on him. That would explain his different deameanor 2 weeks before he disappeared.

Could the blackmail be done thru the laptop? Maybe RG threatened to take the laptop to LE being he was nearing retirement and didn't care to satisfy this persons wishes, and didn't care if the person was about to expose something (meaning Ray finally pulled the plug on the hold this person had over him)? Maybe RG was protecting LG from a damaging revelation of some sort? Just thinking out loud.

[J. J. in Phila]

A ex wife could claim his personal assets, also if he cosigned on any loan for someone.



Yep, but there is no cosigning that we know of.


You could also wonder if he was being blackmailed by someone close to him that he confided in something with that person.

Also a secret ex girlfriend could be a black mailer.



Blackmail has some problems. If its political, who cares? RFG is going to be out of office in eight months. He could start wearing a dress to the office and it wouldn't change the situation. Something sexual? He's not married. Criminal? It's possible, but nothing has come out.

A second problem, how would a blackmailer know how much money RFG had? He wasn't conspicuously wealthy. The guy didn't even own a house.

[Cloudbuster]

JJ I would appreciate it if you could take the time to consider the third link down. This Steve from Ohio has been on a lot of articles pertaining to RG. This is the first time I saw this one though. Now I wonder if RG could have met with a clearing house representive? It's a money deliverer. If he did was it that he was investagting it and fell into trouble or vice versa??? Third article down:

The IOAU responds to inquiries by law enforcement and media regarding NCIC Missing and Unidentified Person File statistics for all of the United States, its territories, and Canada upon request.
Maybe PB could request the report?
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/missingpersons.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.goerthlaw.com/ep_newsletter_09-06.php

How do you probate an estate for a missing person?
This was the challenge for the family of

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

speakng of assets JJ I fond this long article interesting and at the bottom a man named Steve has a little to say about RG and Luna pertaining to this. Could RG have been somehow?? Think assets I suppose.

http://hubpages.com/hub/The_Financial_Village

[J. J. in Phila]

Most of those links are unrelated, especially the third one. The article was written by the attorney that represented the estate.

In terms of the NCIC, I would say RFG currently falls under the category:

"are missing under circumstances indicating their disappearance may not have been voluntary (Involuntary—EMI)."

Emphasis added.

There is a question about the assets. There are assets that are SEEMINGLY not accounted for. They do not seem to have been removed immediately prior to RFG's disappearance.

That should send up a red (or green) flag to look at the asset situation.

[Cloudbuster]

Okay then I think looking at assets is a asset lol. Maybe something more of a slower burn and RG found out about the missing assets??
Could someone use ebanking to just transfer any missing assets?

Those tiny little words "I stole it and that's what pains" comes right back at me. Then there is words " With our soul you stole it". Many words I gotta rehear. Plays into assets. I wonder where the insurance deal fits in?

Im just thinking aloud again.

[J. J. in Phila]

Okay then I think looking at assets is a asset lol. Maybe something more of a slower burn and RG found out about the missing assets??
Could someone use ebanking to just transfer any missing assets?


It's very unlikely that there would be stolen funds, since most of his money was in a bank.

You are thinking of someone walking away with money. There is another possibility, someone walking to the money.:rose:

[Cloudbuster]

I can see where someone walked to the money but Im left with how is RG ever to drive again--trackable--bank again-trackable-have credit-trackable-pension-trackable. For this to be possible someone else is needed. Problem is he still gave up his daughter for what? Another? Maybe but unlikely. I know she is older but stop to think about it. If RG did this then he had to have lost it totally, and is acting like a school boy don't ya think? He knew he was putting the county out with costly searches ect. All reported not to be within his character.

I will focus on assets though it is intriguing I wish we knew what assets and when. ;)
Seems like maybe the missing assets was the brew for the perfect storm that day? Thanks JJ!!!

[J. J. in Phila]

I can see where someone walked to the money but Im left with how is RG ever to drive again--trackable--bank again-trackable-have credit-trackable-pension-trackable. For this to be possible someone else is needed. Problem is he still gave up his daughter for what? Another? Maybe but unlikely. I know she is older but stop to think about it. If RG did this then he had to have lost it totally, and is acting like a school boy don't ya think? He knew he was putting the county out with costly searches ect. All reported not to be within his character.

I will focus on assets though it is intriguing I wish we knew what assets and when. ;)
Seems like maybe the missing assets was the brew for the perfect storm that day? Thanks JJ!!!

I didn't say missing, I said unaccounted for. How much is unaccounted for might be one piece of the puzzle.

I know that each year 1997-2005, RFG had gross earnings as DA in excess of $100 K; that excludes any other source of income. From 2000-2005, he was supposedly "frugal," possibly even before that. That doesn't add up to at the end of the period RFG having just over $100 K in the bank.

Now, RFG either:

A. Spent a lot more money than we've been led to believe.

B. Some, perhaps a lot, isn't there.

[Cloudbuster]

Thanks JJ!!! Perhaps he was stashing it for a walk away OR someone was draining it. Its almost a even tie one way or the other.:confused:

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks JJ!!! Perhaps he was stashing it for a walk away OR someone was draining it. Its almost a even tie one way or the other.:confused:

Someone draining it is next to impossible, without RFG permitting it.

[Cloudbuster]

If Ray was being blackmailed about something that happened pertaining to work then a drain of funds is possible. If Ray planned to travel with Patty and get married and lets say something very damaging could have prohibited that from happening then a drain is possible. What is RG was protecting LG from something very damaging? Then I know he most likely could be drained. We don't know anything about her adoption either? Is there something damaging there?

Just thinking out loud.

[J. J. in Phila]

If Ray was being blackmailed about something that happened pertaining to work then a drain of funds is possible. If Ray planned to travel with Patty and get married and lets say something very damaging could have prohibited that from happening then a drain is possible. What is RG was protecting LG from something very damaging? Then I know he most likely could be drained. We don't know anything about her adoption either? Is there something damaging there?

Just thinking out loud.

Something like that would have been discovered by this point. Anything official would have been covered by liability insurance.

By the time this would have occurred, LG would have been an adult, and the adoption would have been irrelevant, unless she was trying to join the DAR or something.

[Cloudbuster]

Didn't EG drain alot from him thru divorce? Would if someone VERY near and dear to him was into something that got that person in trouble example gambling? horse racing? A loan from a loan shark without a record, ya know they exist and no they don't have paper trills following them? If the person was close enough to Ray then yes he would bell them out IMOP.

[J. J. in Phila]

Didn't EG drain alot from him thru divorce?


Thant I don't know, but she didn't do it between 2000-2005, and we don't know what his declared assets were before that.


Would if someone VERY near and dear to him was into something that got that person in trouble example gambling? horse racing?


No one near and dear is known to have a problem.


A loan from a loan shark without a record, ya know they exist and no they don't have paper trills following them? .

We could be talking about six digits; that's a bit high end for "Big Al."

[sherrijean981]

So Ray was protecting a PERSONAL asset. He wasn't worried about being sued work related it seems. Key here is he wasn't protecting it from PF obviously but from whom???


Had he ever been in a car accident? Libeled anyone but not through his job? Something his most recent ex-wife could get?

I say that because in a lot of divorce cases the ex-wife can get part of a retirement package or properties owned. I know 2 cases where one wife gets 60% and another gets 50% (2 different types of retirements/jobs). Was he still married when the car was bought and put in PF's name or had he still owed money in the divorce?

[sherrijean981]

I didn't say missing, I said unaccounted for. How much is unaccounted for might be one piece of the puzzle.

I know that each year 1997-2005, RFG had gross earnings as DA in excess of $100 K; that excludes any other source of income. From 2000-2005, he was supposedly "frugal," possibly even before that. That doesn't add up to at the end of the period RFG having just over $100 K in the bank.

Now, RFG either:

A. Spent a lot more money than we've been led to believe.

B. Some, perhaps a lot, isn't there.


Jj, it was said that RG was funding some to the Women's Resource Center. I don't remember which frined/DA from another county or in Centre County had said he was funding them but TG also said when his job went full time, RG was giving the WRC the difference between his part time and full time job. No one said he still gave that amount in 2005, but it was a big part of his life. He cared about the place, so part of his money went to them. No one has ever said how much.

No one has ever said if he had life/disabilities insurance policies on himself either.

[Cloudbuster]

SJ come to think about it a wife could be intitled to part of his retirement. I don't think BG would do that but I don't know about EG.:shrug: I do think that stuff is supposed to be settled in divorce court though and maybe not after the divorce?

[J. J. in Phila]

Jj, it was said that RG was funding some to the Women's Resource Center. I don't remember which frined/DA from another county or in Centre County had said he was funding them but TG also said when his job went full time, RG was giving the WRC the difference between his part time and full time job. No one said he still gave that amount in 2005, but it was a big part of his life. He cared about the place, so part of his money went to them. No one has ever said how much.

No one has ever said if he had life/disabilities insurance policies on himself either.

He made a rather large donation, the difference between his part time and full time salary in 1996 or 1997, but I had not heard of anything that big since that time. He made a few very small contributions to the Centre County Republican Committee, but not a lot.

Insurance would not account for the type of expenditures to account for this.

One thing we don't know is the divorce settlement from the second Mrs. Gricar, but even if he was broke, he would have netted $70-$84 K a year after, exclusive of interest or investments. Even using $70K, he would have netted $350,000 per year and spent about a $250,000 over that time. That is an awful lot of money to spend with very little to show for that expenditure.

[J. J. in Phila]

Had he ever been in a car accident? Libeled anyone but not through his job? Something his most recent ex-wife could get?

I say that because in a lot of divorce cases the ex-wife can get part of a retirement package or properties owned. I know 2 cases where one wife gets 60% and another gets 50% (2 different types of retirements/jobs). Was he still married when the car was bought and put in PF's name or had he still owed money in the divorce?

The divorce would be the suit. The settlement would be based on his reported assets at the time.

[sherrijean981]

SJ come to think about it a wife could be intitled to part of his retirement. I don't think BG would do that but I don't know about EG.:shrug: I do think that stuff is supposed to be settled in divorce court though and maybe not after the divorce?


Actually my sister is now going through it in courts because her husband is an A$$ and they have been divorced over a year. It is the money from his retirement and their debts now being discussed. The judge told him that he would have to give her 60% of the retirement by the rules of the court.

I also knew a couple that divorced, settled everything before the divorce, found out at that time what share of their retirements went to the other person. They did it for both of them and they were no where near retirement.

I am not sure EG would have been married long enough for that but it would have been determined by the courts. Just wonder what kind of financial arrangements their divorce had.

[sherrijean981]

One thing we don't know is the divorce settlement from the second Mrs. Gricar, but even if he was broke, he would have netted $70-$84 K a year after, exclusive of interest or investments. Even using $70K, he would have netted $350,000 per year and spent about a $250,000 over that time. That is an awful lot of money to spend with very little to show for that expenditure.


Your figures are not making sense to me. Did you make an error somewhere or am I just not getting your tallies?

[J. J. in Phila]

Your figures are not making sense to me. Did you make an error somewhere or am I just not getting your tallies?

I'm figuring about a 35% tax rate on RFG's salary as DA. His salary ranged from $105 K (in 1997) to $129 K (in 2005); in 2003 was $120 K. That was before taxes. You can figure that a year where he made $110 K, he had an after tax income of about $71 K, exclusive of any other income. Even if this was figure for five years, put $20-$25 K in the bank, each year, he's have to spend $45-$50 K per year for this to add up.

These are very conservative figures and it might be might be more like him spending $50-$55 K per year. I'm not seeing him spending that much, by a long shot.

[sherrijean981]

My opinion on this case has always been that RG left of his own volition. I have not put much stock in T. Gricar's expert public opinion because I think his words are coming from a biased perspective. I also believe that he might suspect a scenario quite different from what he is professing to believe, but that family allegiance and propriety is more important than satisfying the curiosity of strangers." Quote

*****
There was a time when TG was quite upset to the point of shutting himself away in his cabin over a betrayal of some kind by someone close to him. Something that he had not expected but would not go in to. I often wondered if he had found out something about RG that upset him. Like maybe he was alive and had not told him? But TG seemed to disappear from the scene of the forum not long after that.
*****
Quote:
"a) he had no intention of banking his future - literally and otherwise - on Patty F. He left nothing behind to substantiate a commitment to her in the future and made sure there were no ties from the past to tie him to her in any material way; in fact,"
Quote

*****
I have often wondered if anything from RG's personal items and/or collections might have been missing from his home that no one was told about. Maybe even before he disappeared. He collected camera's and other items, was into taking photo's, especially of his daughter. Were any of those camera, photo's or the films to them missing?
*****

Quote
"(As for LG, it is possible that she knows - or suspects - her father's whereabouts, or that RG hinted to her of his intentions before he disappeared. It is also possible that RG has already been in touch with her, or plans to make his whereabouts known to her at a later time.)"

*****
Just the lack of LG's presence or any info in the news about what she has done to help get this investigation going any further has bothered me. I would have given up a job to look for my father. For all the words that he means so much to her I am left feeling the opposite. I also believe the lack of her presence and her silence would also mean she might know something more. She was there before the polygraph but not much since. Maybe some questions to her, TG and BG on a polygraph now might give an idea of whether or not they have heard from him in the last 3 years.
Patty's words of "still waiting" means to me she has always thought he is alive. Her no longer speaking to the press makes me wonder if I am correct on that.
*****

By the way, nice to have your thoughts about this again.
Welcome back.

[sherrijean981]

I hope everyone knows part of my reply to the last poster is included with their post in the quote section, between the stars. I tried to correct it but no words showed, only a page of smilely faces.

Sorry

[J. J. in Phila]

Good to see you post.

My opinion on this case has always been that RG left of his own volition. I have not put much stock in T. Gricar's expert public opinion because I think his words are coming from a biased perspective. I also believe that he might suspect a scenario quite different from what he is professing to believe, but that family allegiance and propriety is more important than satisfying the curiosity of strangers.

I think you are correct, in general. TG has indicated that he has talked to Sloane, repeatedly. We now know that Sloane thought it was walkaway, from the start.


3. RG is a lawyer. I have never known an attorney who did not use that professional expertise to his advantage in personal situations.
To those who wonder about the outcome of the distribution of assets in RG's divorce case, I would bet that RG was the "victor" regardless of how mutually fair the settlement agreement appeared on paper. Furthermore, it's not easy to go back to sue for assets after the divorce is finalized. Yes, it does and can happen, but it is not an easy proposition, especially when the hypothetical defendant is an attorney of Gricar's profile and status.


That could be part of it. If RFG slipped into a quiet retirement, would he have been the subject of interest generated now?


4. The notion that RG would not hurt his loved ones by disappearing into the night like a trail of mist might be an erroneous assumption. It would not be too harsh to infer from RG's actions that

a) he had no intention of banking his future - literally and otherwise - on Patty F. He left nothing behind to substantiate a commitment to her in the future and made sure there were no ties from the past to tie him to her in any material way; in fact,

b) RG did not appear to be intimately involved with anyone - family, friends or work associates - to a point that would prevent him from walking away. Even his daughter, at a safe 3,000 miles away, seemed only a remote recipient of RG's affections and loyalties.



We've seen arguments posted saying that RFG the "type" to walk away that we have to deal with "the character of the man." Those people close to him, both personally and geographically, in the months prior to his disappearance, have been saying, in effect, **yes he was.**

I need evidence, and I hope that the evidence, that either make walkaway much more likely, or rule it out, will be forthcoming.

[Politigal]

JJ wrote this:

"I think you are correct, in general. TG has indicated that he has talked to Sloane, repeatedly. We now know that Sloane thought it was walkaway, from the start."

But, this is absolutely NOT TRUE.

Ask Tony Gricar. He even previously posted that Gricar's friends opinions had changed, but he would not elaborate.

I've said it once and I'll say it again JJ - you twist better than Chubby Checker.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ wrote this:

"I think you are correct, in general. TG has indicated that he has talked to Sloane, repeatedly. We now know that Sloane thought it was walkaway, from the start."

But, this is absolutely NOT TRUE.

Ask Tony Gricar. He even previously posted that Gricar's friends opinions had changed, but he would not elaborate.

I've said it once and I'll say it again JJ - you twist better than Chubby Checker.

Sloane's opinion has not changed, unless it was in the last 3-4 months. TG once posted that Sloane definitely did not think it was suicide, but didn't elaborate. We know what theory he subscribes to.



But quiet has surrounded this case for a long time now. I think part of the reason is that many people who knew him best, or worked with him, believe he planned and then executed his own disappearance. I wish I had kept count of courthouse workers or legal professionals who told me they believe he's out there somewhere. One of his better friends and longtime coworker, Centre County Assistant District Attorney Steve Sloane, said all along he thought Ray is alive and well out there somewhere. Steve's not alone, not by a longshot.



http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/5851

This statement isn't new to me, but when it was confirmed, more than a year ago, I wasn't surprised.

We've heard comments, PEF's at the press conference, asking RFG to call, "the bar is split," between suicide and walkaway in the first weeks after RFG disappeared (Young, I think), PEF's comment a month later, Shotts comment, PEF's recent comments, TG not ruling out any option, and now this.

Yes, those people proximate to RFG think it was in character for him to have walked away. They've considered that possibility for a while.

P'gal, you seem to be dancing to your own music, a tune that no one else can hear. The music coming from Centre County is loud and getting louder; you're just sticking you fingers in your hears and trying not to hear it and try to tap dance to a tango.

That RFG's friends and co-workers think it was in character for RFG to walkaway. That does not prove he walked away, but it knocks out the argument that he wasn't the time.

[Politigal]

Back up your bunk JJ ---

How do *you* know what Sloane's opinions are or if they haven't changed?

[J. J. in Phila]

Back up your bunk JJ ---

How do *you* know what Sloane's opinions are or if they haven't changed?


Because someone sent them to me, and they have been consistent; this was just public confirmation. :rolleyes: In other words, I've seen something in public that I had in private, which is why I've been posting that you should be prepared what comes from the friends/coworkers, and why claims that RFG couldn't possibly walk away, really were not going to hold up. Why do you think I've I've been hitting LW, especially, when she claims, "the consensus" was that RFG was murdered, or that we should take into account "the character of the man?" (I'm starting to feel some empathy for BillyWahoo.)

There are people that were close to RFG that have thought this was a walkaway, apparantly a fairly large number (Bob Buehner is not among them). Now, that speaks to what people expected of RFG, his attitudes and possibly his motives, but there is still a problem. What if all these people are wrong?

What if, despite RFG's noted interest in walkaway scenarios, he didn't walk away? What if a killer was able to find out about it (which looks fairly easy), and stage the killing to play into people's expectations?

That is why I'm not too interested in if RFG had the motivation to walk away, but if there is some evidence of means that RFG may have used to get out of Lewisburg. In other words: "How Could Ray Gricar Have Gotten Out of Lewisburg"

I wasn't surprised when I found out, because of the other comments. Now, back up you numerous PEF statements.:biggrin:

[gstickley]

Please post "RG's noted interest in walkaway scenerios".

[J. J. in Phila]

Please post "RG's noted interest in walkaway scenerios".


You've read the story on Mel Wiley; that was one, but it was not the only one. You've also heard from TOL acquaintance.

More to come.

[J. J. in Phila]

In actuality, what you 'think' happened to RG provides nothing in the way of evidence nor does it in anyway interpret or lead to any conclusion about what may have actually occurred.


LW, it is not what **I** think, it is what his friends/coworkers think; it is what they think. This isn't my interpretation. As I've pointed out, it is far from definitive, but it implodes the "character of the man" or "he wouldn't have," argument. Those close to him say he could.


Your choice to keep your 'I think' stuck in the SOS lot spinning your wheels while chanting 'Mel Wiley' is nothing more than that........ YOUR 'two cents'. It matters little how many join you there....... your belief that you can successfully back it up simply with 'he said, she said', without solid evidence that it holds one iota of truth, in no way causes it to automatically become truth.......it's still only worth 'two cents'.


When it comes to motivation, that is all you have. If Joe says, "I want to kill Mary," and Mary turns up murdered, that is enough to demonstrate motive.


A full investigation is now seen as a possibility sometime in the near future. It has been spoken this week as we hoped it would be, and while we wait for election results, we will continue to move votes toward a candidate who will offer us something that Corbett has turned his back on for 3.5 years, the wishes of the people and a DA in PA who mysteriously went missing.

Good luck spinning your wheels in the parking lot.............looks like a rut to me, but hey, your opinion is worth the same as mine............two cents.
JMO

Actually, it wasn't spoken of at all. And, I can assure you that I am doing a bit more than "spinning my wheels."

[gstickley]

You've read the story on Mel Wiley; that was one, but it was not the only one. You've also heard from TOL acquaintance.

More to come.

Yep, heard the story on Mel Wiley. Also read that Mel Wiley was mentioned in the office once; at no time did I ever read that RG was the one who mentioned that name. Don't believe KA said it was RG.

Also read about TOL's acquaintance. Wasn't that the same acquaintance who was intoxicated most of the time?

Who are the others who have all this knowledge of RG's interest in walkaways??

[J. J. in Phila]

What 'THEY think' is worth the same two cents as your 'I think' or my 'I think', without evidence to back it up.


No, it is worth because of proximity. What they think is based on interactions with RFG.

Thinking has no prerequisite for being based solely on truth......it is individualized assumption resulting from a past and present belief system. Believing something is true doesn't automatically make it so.


I've never said that it was proof. I have that your ridiculous "character of the man" claims are not matched by those who where close to him before. Bluntly, I trust their judgment of RFG more than I trust yours. While not proof, it eliminates the argument you have put forward.


We have no proof that RG ever mentioned anything of the kind. The fact that KA 'thinks' she remembers a name proves nothing. Your 'thinking' that her mention means something proves nothing. It's just another 'he said, she said'.........without evidence.


Yes we do, Sloane. When asked, he said, yes, they discussed the Wiley case seven years (at least) after the fact. Motivation is almost aways "he said/she said," and that stands up in court. And when RFG's closest says it, I believe it.


There is one and only one way to solve this mystery....... a full investigation. After that happens, then everyone can compare what they 'think' about what actually occurred, whatever than might be.


And, who is disagreeing with you? Part of that investigation, however, would be to ask those people close to RFG about his attitudes, desires and interests.


The 'I think', bought and paid for by Centre County and the State of PA voters, to act as the voice of the people, didn't occur either from the newby DA, assumed to be ready to take over the reins when he entered office in January, 2006, and a State AG who strangely surrendered his politically paid for 'I think', failed to move this case to a full investigation.

'I think' both the local DA and the AG office failed to recognize a duty they carry as county/state servants and that is my 'two cents' worth.

If you have not been paying attention, I have called MM a stumbling block, no matter who wins in November. I'm personally voting for JM, but even if he wins, his proposal changes virtually nothing in the case.

You can continue the chest beating and empty rhetoric, but there is newly confirmed information: Some of those closest to RFG think was a walkaway. The knew RFG on 4/15/05 and saw something about him that makes them think walkaway is likely. Those opinions may or may not explain what happened to RFG.

[J. J. in Phila]

Yep, heard the story on Mel Wiley. Also read that Mel Wiley was mentioned in the office once; at no time did I ever read that RG was the one who mentioned that name. Don't believe KA said it was RG.

Also read about TOL's acquaintance. Wasn't that the same acquaintance who was intoxicated most of the time?

Who are the others who have all this knowledge of RG's interest in walkaways??

Oh, GS, you seem to have forgotten:

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/426195.html

I hope you live central PA, where memory problems seem to go unnoticed. :)

TOL's acquaintance is consistent with the other, more sober, friends and coworkers.

There have been hints of it since 4/2005, and it's just been a bit more confirmed.

More to come, I expect... .

[gstickley]

Oh, GS, you seem to have forgotten:

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/426195.html

Humm . . . Sloane remembers talking about Wiley 7 yrs. after Wiley disappeared. Wiley disappeared in 1985; 7 yrs. later is 1992. "Others" remember talking about Wiley 10 yrs. later. Wiley disappeared in 1985; 10 yrs. later is 1995. And, KA never said RG talked about Wiley.

I hope you live central PA, where memory problems seem to go unnoticed. :)

Nope, don't live in central PA; my memory is fine.

TOL's acquaintance is consistent with the other, more sober, friends and coworkers.

Which other friends & co-workers???

There have been hints of it since 4/2005, and it's just been a bit more confirmed.

What "hints" since 2005? And what has been confirmed?

More to come, I expect... .

Ya got that right!!

[J. J. in Phila]

Oh, GS, you seem to have forgotten:

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_...ry/426195.html


Humm . . . Sloane remembers talking about Wiley 7 yrs. after Wiley disappeared. Wiley disappeared in 1985; 7 yrs. later is 1992. "Others" remember talking about Wiley 10 yrs. later. Wiley disappeared in 1985; 10 yrs. later is 1995. And, KA never said RG talked about Wiley.


JKA indicated, with CPV that the case was a topic. There may be others, and other cases. Sloane was also quickly laid off in 1992, so the conversation might have been later. I'm willing to say 7+ years.

Likewise JKA wasn't there in 1985.




Nope, don't live in central PA; my memory is fine.




Which other friends & co-workers???
[/quote]

I just said "other," alluded to in PB piece and, oh yes, "the bar is split" comment from the first weeks.

I expect a lot more to come, and so far, you are seeing the direction in which it will come from. Actually, what I know in that regard, my numbers won't move. There is something else that might move them in that direction, however.

[Serendipitous1]

It has been very interesting to watch the symbiotic relationships develop in this case...and not just here. I believe UtR, TG, GS and others understand. For the rest: Is it reasonable to expect PB will now, "in death", do what he failed to do, "in life"...even (or especially) with J.J. as the symbiotic vanguard?

Look. I remain as open to the possibility of an intentional disappearance as anyone...but I have yet to hear anything more than supposition, conjecture and pure hallucination...true fodder for discussion boards, I admit, though not particularly persuasive in the real world.

[gstickley]

No need for you to worry yourself over my 'characterizations'. I am fine with them just the way they are. You certainly have provided no evidence proving RG character had any of the character flaws you find necessary to project onto him in order to back up your walkaway theory.

NEWLY confirmed information? PLEEEZE........While that would prove you have been living in a vacuum somewhere the entire time PB's questions and answers were available, it hardly provides any evidence of walkaway.

Until such time as a full investigation is conducted which could prove no crime has been committed, far be it for me to stand anywhere near your walkaway platform, considering you have no evidence whatsoever to back it up with. I will continue to work toward a full investigation occurring regardless of what the outcome may prove to be. Your 'he said, she said' is proof of nothing, other than people have opinions. That ain't 'special' nor is it evidence.


As you posted, until there is a full investigation conducted which could prove no crime has been committed, no one will ever know.

Makes ya kinda wonder why there are those who poo-poo a full investigation, who think MM & SW has done everything that could be done, who think the AG couldn't possibly ask for a full neutral investigative team, who think a full neutral investigative team is not needed. Makes ya wonder why walkaway is being rammed down our throats. Makes ya wonder if they are afraid to find out what happened to RG. Makes ya wonder why JM is being dissed by a few.

JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

It has been very interesting to watch the symbiotic relationships develop in this case...and not just here. I believe UtR, TG, GS and others understand. For the rest: Is it reasonable to expect PB will now, "in death", do what he failed to do, "in life"...even (or especially) with J.J. as the symbiotic vanguard?

Look. I remain as open to the possibility of an intentional disappearance as anyone...but I have yet to hear anything more than supposition, conjecture and pure hallucination...true fodder for discussion boards, I admit, though not particularly persuasive in the real world.


S1, I've been the guy posting MEANS, over and over again. This confirmation moved my numbers on walkaway up a whole point. It moved my my numbers on murder down a whole zero points.

This better serve as a wakeup call to all posters those close to RFG saw something in him that led to the idea, "Yeah, he walked away." It ends the **RFG isn't the type to walk away** argument. He was the type to walk away, according to those close to him.

Just because he was the type, that doesn't prove that he did walk away.

[Serendipitous1]

UtR, TG, GS...and LW. Any others want to weigh in on intentional walkaway?

[J. J. in Phila]

No need for you to worry yourself over my 'characterizations'. I am fine with them just the way they are. You certainly have provided no evidence proving RG character had any of the character flaws you find necessary to project onto him in order to back up your walkaway theory.



That is your first problem. You referred to it as a "flaw." What "flaw?"


NEWLY confirmed information? PLEEEZE........While that would prove you have been living in a vacuum somewhere the entire time PB's questions and answers were available, it hardly provides any evidence of walkaway.


It provides evidence of what people saw in RFG. It deals with if he would be expected to vanish, is it out of character? That answer is no, it is not out of character. That's what it proves. No more.


Until such time as a full investigation is conducted which could prove no crime has been committed, far be it for me to stand anywhere near your walkaway platform, considering you have no evidence whatsoever to back it up with. I will continue to work toward a full investigation occurring regardless of what the outcome may prove to be. Your 'he said, she said' is proof of nothing, other than people have opinions. That ain't 'special' nor is it evidence.

When you say that, you characterize all witness testimony as "he said/she said." The courts don't dismiss that. I don't either.

Now, I have not exactly said, "That's it, game over," but it is part of the mix.

[Serendipitous1]

S1, I've been the guy posting MEANS, over and over again. This confirmation moved my numbers on walkaway up a whole point. It moved my my numbers on murder down a whole zero points.

This better serve as a wakeup call to all posters those close to RFG saw something in him that led to the idea, "Yeah, he walked away." It ends the **RFG isn't the type to walk away** argument. He was the type to walk away, according to those close to him.

Just because he was the type, that doesn't prove that he did walk away.It ends nothing...because there are no quotes...no motive publicly expressed by anyone who was close to RG. As to means...I could have driven RG out of Lewisburg...so what?

[J. J. in Phila]

As you posted, until there is a full investigation conducted which could prove no crime has been committed, no one will ever know.

Makes ya kinda wonder why there are those who poo-poo a full investigation, who think MM & SW has done everything that could be done, who think the AG couldn't possibly ask for a full neutral investigative team, who think a full neutral investigative team is not needed. Makes ya wonder why walkaway is being rammed down our throats. Makes ya wonder if they are afraid to find out what happened to RG. Makes ya wonder why JM is being dissed by a few.

JMO

Ah, who, on this board, is saying there shouldn't be an investigation. I'm the one calling MM a stumbling block and calling for a grand jury (something JM didn't actually say he'd do, ironically).

[Politigal]

It ends nothing...because there are no quotes...no motive publicly expressed by anyone who was close to RG. As to means...I could have driven RG out of Lewisburg...so what?

JJ's locked in....

in his own mind. :tongue:

[J. J. in Phila]

It ends nothing...because there are no quotes...no motive publicly expressed by anyone who was close to RG. As to means...I could have driven RG out of Lewisburg...so what?

If you were a trusted friend of RFG's, I'd want a time line on you. I'm not joking. If I'd known him, I think LE should do one on me. That, we've found out from PB wasn't done on one possibility for the "Mystery Woman."

There are numerous possible motives, some of which may become apparent through further investigation.

I'd like to see that investigated. I am not convinced that Mr. Gicar voluntarily disappeared, but a check of the means may confirm that it was. Likewise, a negative result would greatly reduce that possibility.

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ's locked in....

in his own mind. :tongue:

You already have the statement in the public record, and it's not from me.
:biggrin:

[gstickley]

UtR, TG, GS...and LW. Any others want to weigh in on intentional walkaway?

Why would RG intentionally walk away??? If "means" is so critical to some, "why" is just as critical to me.

It was so widely broadcast for so long that RG & the SO had plans upon his retirement. He only had 8 months to go; not that much actual work time with accumulated leave time used. He had a pension available in 8 months, probably a sizeable amount. He had personal belongings that probably meant something to him. He had friends/family. He had a reputation to maintain. IF he actually did call PF about the dog the last time he was heard from, he cared about the dog. IF he actually did call PF, why would he do so if he were walking away? Why were his prints not found on the car? Why was his laptop found in the river? Why was the laptop even taken from the closet; if he wanted to check with someone, he could have done so from home?
Just walk away. I think not.

JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Why would RG intentionally walk away??? If "means" is so critical to some, "why" is just as critical to me.

It was so widely broadcast for so long that RG & the SO had plans upon his retirement. He only had 8 months to go; not that much actual work time with accumulated leave time used. He had a pension available in 8 months, probably a sizeable amount. He had personal belongings that probably meant something to him. He had friends/family. He had a reputation to maintain. IF he actually did call PF about the dog the last time he was heard from, he cared about the dog. IF he actually did call PF, why would he do so if he were walking away? Why were his prints not found on the car? Why was his laptop found in the river? Why was the laptop even taken from the closet; if he wanted to check with someone, he could have done so from home?
Just walk away. I think not.

JMO

There can be several reasons why, ranging from a sense of adventure to a financial reason. They why isn't that important; it there isn't evidence that he walked away, he probably didn't, even if he has good reason to walk away.

He had personal belongings that probably meant something to him.

Not that many; he was living in small house with someone else, and he was the one that moved in.

He had friends/family. Very few, and his daughter was 2500 + miles away.

He had a reputation to maintain. No, he didn't. He was planning to retire and not practice law. His reputation would be meaningless. There is a converse to that. If RFG did not disappear under mysterious circumstances, do you think anyone would be posting about him? I wouldn't, frankly.

IF he actually did call PF about the dog the last time he was heard from, he cared about the dog. IF he actually did call PF, why would he do so if he were walking away? To establish a verifiable location, well away from Bellefonte, but not immediately leading LE to Lewisburg.

Why were his prints not found on the car? That could have been natural; the prints were smeared through driving, just turning the wheel.

Why was his laptop found in the river? Why was the laptop even taken from the closet; if he wanted to check with someone, he could have done so from home? We might find an answer to that soon. Some possible reasons was that he didn't LE to see something he checked, like travel arrangements or financial transactions.

All of those are possible reasons that are consistent with walkaway; there are reasons that are not walkaway related. It cuts both ways.

[Serendipitous1]

If you were a trusted friend of RFG's, I'd want a time line on you. I'm not joking. If I'd known him, I think LE should do one on me. That, we've found out from PB wasn't done on one possibility for the "Mystery Woman."

There are numerous possible motives, some of which may become apparent through further investigation.

I'd like to see that investigated. I am not convinced that Mr. Gicar voluntarily disappeared, but a check of the means may confirm that it was. Likewise, a negative result would greatly reduce that possibility.Though I (regretably) never knew RG, I actually can account for my time that weekend (Friday afternoon through Sunday morning). And, as it turned out, I was never more than 25 miles from the SoS.

Obviously no one, for whatever reason, can convince you that the means to have intentonally disappeared (though important) are the least concern. Suffice it to say that if RG wanted to disappear himself, there would be no trace of the means. It is the lack of a motive which has, thus far, been the primary reason to reject this scenario. No one has yet established a plausible motive. You and PB can "talk the talk"...but can you "walk the walk"? Where are these other supposed walkaway enthusiasts? I have yet to see them put their names in print.

[J. J. in Phila]

You've seen Sloane's name out there and the original "split bar" comment, PEF's still holding out hop.




Suffice it to say that if RG wanted to disappear himself, there would be no trace of the means.


On this I disagree. There probably would be. Somebody wouldn't be accounted for, a car would have purchased under a false identity. RFG didn't just flag someone down and hop a ride (and the driver not remember him).


It is the lack of a motive which has, thus far, been the primary reason to reject this scenario.

We've had two possible ones, even in combination.

[Serendipitous1]

You've seen Sloane's name out there and the original "split bar" comment, PEF's still holding out hop[e].

On this I disagree. There probably would be. Somebody wouldn't be accounted for, a car would have purchased under a false identity. RFG didn't just flag someone down and hop a ride (and the driver not remember him).

We've had two possible ones, even in combination.Nonsense...supposition, conjecture or pure hallucination. Where are the quotes that anyone close to RG thinks he intentionally disappeared himself?

[Serendipitous1]

JJ's locked in....in his own mind. :tongue:Cathartic fever....catch the wave (or not)! Missed you at the reunion. :punch:

ETA: They did not appreciate your effort...go figure. I have to go to bed now...so J.J. can have the last word.

[J. J. in Phila]

Nonsense...supposition, conjecture or pure hallucination. Where are the quotes that anyone close to RG thinks he intentionally disappeared himself?

I've given a few. I am however more interested in means, because if there is evidence of means, motive is not important.

You can dream on, but now we're hearing that those close to RFG say walkaway; that is enough to say that walkaway should be considered.

[Serendipitous1]

I've given a few. I am however more interested in means, because if there is evidence of means, motive is not important.

You can dream on, but now we're hearing that those close to RFG say walkaway; that is enough to say that walkaway should be considered.Nonsense. You can hold on to the blognuts. I am looking for facts. PB had his chance. Are we to believe he held anything back...which he now feels "safe" to post from out of state? Where are these walkaway enthusiasts? Sara Ganim...can you get to the truth?

[J. J. in Phila]

Nonsense. You can hold on to the blognuts. I am looking for facts. PB had his chance. Are we to believe he held anything back...which he now feels "safe" to post from out of state? Where are these walkaway enthusiasts? Sara Ganim...can you get to the truth?


I'm not an "enthusiast," but for the last few months your best efforts have been attempting a political solution, which has been a disappointment, by your standards. It pains me to think that, instead of quickly raising the issue, when it was fully in the press (early July) he waited until now (mid September). While his plan is a good one, it won't necessarily have any effect on the case.

I'm not looking for fact, because I'm not LE. The best I can do is make suggestion and ask questions.

The current question is: How Could Ray Gricar Have Gotten Out of Lewisburg

If the answer some method, there will be evidence. If that evidence isn't there, he probably didn't do so voluntarily. That question is the current best one for yielding an answer.

[gstickley]

Nonsense. You can hold on to the blognuts. I am looking for facts. PB had his chance. Are we to believe he held anything back...which he now feels "safe" to post from out of state? Where are these walkaway enthusiasts? Sara Ganim...can you get to the truth?

:beer: Donchajustluvit!!!!!

[gstickley]

It's easier to investigate a "walkaway" or a "suicide". Actually, not much investigation to it---just do the initial report, a little legwork, & stick it in the file. In this case, it appears that most "investigation" was done within weeks. Neighbors not interviewed, nor co-workers or friends; no search of the residence; everything taken at face value: "walkaway" or "suicide". Three (3) days after RG disappeared, a wake-like event was already in the works; when he didn't appear for a Mon. morning trial, he was already spoken about in the past tense. Eight (8)months later, the so-called investigators were patted on the back by the incoming DA ("Ya done a good job, Brownie!") Months after that, the PSP-CIA did their belated report ("Everything's done that could be done!). Yet . . . all the PSP-CIA apparently did was read the report of the so-called investigators. For a couple years, we heard there were 5 prints, 5 sets of prints, 3 prints, only 1 print, car not wiped down; suddenly, 2+ years later, there were NO prints found in the car. But, that's okay, not important, old so-called chief investigator is to blame, not working there any more. Did you ever ask yourselves why the DA or chief of the department didn't know this . . . or did they? When Mr. Buehner contacted them about Kroll, why didn't they respond to him; why did they 'jump stiff-legged' when he went public?? Why didn't they know about Kroll in the first place? All you ever hear is that BPD has all the resources needed, no reason to ask for more. Did you every ask yourself WHY they haven't asked for more? Why did the MW & the gold/tan/brown car information not be made public for an entire year? (Oh yeah, it was to 'save face' for the SO!) I may be the only one who believes it, but I don't believe LE's disappearance was EVER investigated, from the 1st day, as a "foul play".

Now . . . this is MY own opinion.

[J. J. in Phila]

It's easier to investigate a "walkaway" or a "suicide". Actually, not much investigation to it---just do the initial report, a little legwork, & stick it in the file. In this case, it appears that most "investigation" was done within weeks. Neighbors not interviewed, nor co-workers or friends; no search of the residence; everything taken at face value: "walkaway" or "suicide".


Actually, it is easier to investigate, and rule out, walkaway. There are relatively few methods that RFG could have used to get out of Lewisburg. The first few days, great, almost textbook. After that, some during the week of 4/18, it fell apart.



Three (3) days after RG disappeared, a wake-like event was already in the works; when he didn't appear for a Mon. morning trial, he was already spoken about in the past tense.


Asking RFG to call isn't past tense, by a long shot.



Eight (8)months later, the so-called investigators were patted on the back by the incoming DA ("Ya done a good job, Brownie!") Months after that, the PSP-CIA did their belated report ("Everything's done that could be done!). Yet . . . all the PSP-CIA apparently did was read the report of the so-called investigators. For a couple years, we heard there were 5 prints, 5 sets of prints, 3 prints, only 1 print, car not wiped down; suddenly, 2+ years later, there were NO prints found in the car. But, that's okay, not important, old so-called chief investigator is to blame, not working there any more. Did you ever ask yourselves why the DA or chief of the department didn't know this . . . or did they? When Mr. Buehner contacted them about Kroll, why didn't they respond to him; why did they 'jump stiff-legged' when he went public?? Why didn't they know about Kroll in the first place? All you ever hear is that BPD has all the resources needed, no reason to ask for more. Did you every ask yourself WHY they haven't asked for more? Why did the MW & the gold/tan/brown car information not be made public for an entire year? (Oh yeah, it was to 'save face' for the SO!) I may be the only one who believes it, but I don't believe LE's disappearance was EVER investigated, from the 1st day, as a "foul play".

Now . . . this is MY own opinion.

You are entitled to own opinion, but not your own facts. The tan car, and the "mystery woman" was reported by October, but not particularly emphasized.

You are ask that it should be investigated as "foul play." How is that different than "investigating?"

A known associate of RFG, the "Harrisburg women," who at least generally matched the description of the "mystery woman," was reported. That doesn't point to murder as much as it does than it does walkaway, but it still should have been checked. Was it checked? No.

A "metallic" car was reported, but ignored, because "didn't fit the time line." I cannot find an actual conflict. That doesn't point to murder as much as it does than it does walkaway, but it still should have been checked. Did anyone ask the logical question, "If that is accurate, where did RFG get the car?" No.

We have a man that, in the time prior to his second divorce, was grossing over $100 K per year. We've gotten a ball park figure of his assets and it doesn't add up. Does that point to foul play? Probably not. Has it been investigated? No.

Some of those things could not have been investigated within the first week of the investigation.

[gstickley]

Actually, it is easier to investigate, and rule out, walkaway. There are relatively few methods that RFG could have used to get out of Lewisburg. The first few days, great, almost textbook. After that, some during the week of 4/18, it fell apart.




Asking RFG to call isn't past tense, by a long shot.

Not only LG & PF were referring to RG in the past tense. Why?

You are entitled to own opinion, but not your own facts. The tan car, and the "mystery woman" was reported by October, but not particularly emphasized.

Why wouldn't it have been emphasized, I wonder.

You are ask that it should be investigated as "foul play." How is that different than "investigating?"

Why wasn't the residence completely searched? Why weren't the neighbors interviewed? Why weren't the co-workers interviewed?

A known associate of RFG, the "Harrisburg women," who at least generally matched the description of the "mystery woman," was reported. That doesn't point to murder as much as it does than it does walkaway, but it still should have been checked. Was it checked? No.

Why not?

A "metallic" car was reported, but ignored, because "didn't fit the time line." I cannot find an actual conflict. That doesn't point to murder as much as it does than it does walkaway, but it still should have been checked. Did anyone ask the logical question, "If that is accurate, where did RFG get the car?" No.

Why was there such a strict "time line" set?

We have a man that, in the time prior to his second divorce, was grossing over $100 K per year. We've gotten a ball park figure of his assets and it doesn't add up. Does that point to foul play? Probably not. Has it been investigated? No.

Why not?

Some of those things could not have been investigated within the first week of the investigation.

Maybe not the 1st week, but why were they never investigated?
Oh, yeah, RG's probably just a "suicide", a "walkaway". Don't rock the boat or cause embarrassment or work up a sweat by investigatigating it as "foul play" from the beginning!"

[J. J. in Phila]

Not only LG & PF were referring to RG in the past tense. Why?



Asking RFG to "call" is NOT past tense, unless it is very long distance call, into the afterlife.




Why wouldn't it have been emphasized, I wonder.


You'll have to ask DZ. My guess is because there was only one report, which wasn't that good.


Why wasn't the residence completely searched? Why weren't the neighbors interviewed? Why weren't the co-workers interviewed?


Because the car and RFG's scent were in a parking lot 50 miles away and because a number of witnesses put him in the area where it was found.

As for the Harrisburg women," or other people in that "inner circle," I don't know.



Why was there such a strict "time line" set?


Ask DZ. I think it was a bad decision. Same with the money aspect. I'd be looking at the divorce settlement and RFG's asset accumulation and expenditures. It wouldn't have the first course of action, but I'd be asking in the first month.

I have a feeling the boat is being rocked. You might, ultimately not like where the water is being slashed. If I was sure that some things were thoroughly checked out, walkaway might be about where suicide is now. Then again, so might murder.

[gstickley]

I realize some are now 'accusing' DZ as the "chief culprit" in all the mis-direction, mis-information, screwed-up so-called investigation. But . . . where was his supervisor & where was the acting DA & where was the newly-elected DA, while all this was occurring. Did no one check up on him . . . or did they just go along with it because it was easier & wouldn't cause any embarrassment to anyone? And the 'cop person' with the CDT just rolled with the flow for so many years. Don't remember any questions being asked: everyone's done everything that could be done! Even now, the Chief & the DA are lauded as 'doing everything that could be done'. But wait . . . things may be happening shortly. Don't need an unbiased investigation conducted cause 'no rock has been left unturned'. It's okay though . . . 'the boat is being rocked' . . . 3.5 years later! Still don't need an unbiased investigation . . . 'everything that could be done has been done'.

[J. J. in Phila]

I realize some are now 'accusing' DZ as the "chief culprit" in all the mis-direction, mis-information, screwed-up so-called investigation. But . . . where was his supervisor & where was the acting DA & where was the newly-elected DA, while all this was occurring. Did no one check up on him . . . or did they just go along with it because it was easier & wouldn't cause any embarrassment to anyone? And the 'cop person' with the CDT just rolled with the flow for so many years. Don't remember any questions being asked: everyone's done everything that could be done! Even now, the Chief & the DA are lauded as 'doing everything that could be done'. But wait . . . things may be happening shortly. Don't need an unbiased investigation conducted cause 'no rock has been left unturned'. It's okay though . . . 'the boat is being rocked' . . . 3.5 years later! Still don't need an unbiased investigation . . . 'everything that could be done has been done'.

The "cop person" wrote a story called "Missed Leads," about 5 months after getting the job, and the information stopped.

The DA, and note a rare semi-defense of MM, isn't the guy in charge. He wasn't in the first weeks and he isn't today. There are things he could do to, if not take control of the situation, at least do a parallel one.

Were there things that should have been, IMO, checked out in the first month that were not checked out? Yes. Should they be checked out now? Yes.

[J. J. in Phila]

[QUOTE=gstickley;12158669]It's easier to investigate a "walkaway" or a "suicide". Actually, not much investigation to it---just do the initial report, a little legwork, & stick it in the file. In this case, it appears that most "investigation" was done within weeks. Neighbors not interviewed, nor co-workers or friends; no search of the residence; everything taken at face value: "walkaway" or "suicide".
<snipped> QUOTE]

With no body found, dead or alive, both suicide and walkaway should have been placed on the back burner long ago, with a full investigation into foul play, front and center.



That probably would have been a mistake. Who was the person checked out for possible involvement? BLJ. Who was cleared? BJL. The one time line they did (well two, if you count PEF), didn't turn up anything.

LW, a sizable portion of the electorate is looking at the case and saying, *Stop wasting taxpayer dollars.** This case does not have a political solution, at least in this cycle.

[sherrijean981]

[quote=J. J. in Phila;12156164]

When it comes to motivation, that is all you have. If Joe says, "I want to kill Mary," and Mary turns up murdered, that is enough to demonstrate motive.
quote]


JJ, that can not be true either. Hadn't Billy Joe Leathers told people in a bar that he "buried RG so deep no one will find him?" RG is no where to be found and BJL has committed suicide, so wouldn't that be enough to demonstrate a case? He had plenty of anger at RG for all the things being taken from him, that he blamed RG for. Of course it was all his actions that caused his down fall. Still he made statements and I had spoke to a woman who was in the bar when it was said.

[Cloudbuster]

SJ the lady in the bar did she actually hear BJL make the comment?

[sherrijean981]

We discuss the investigation in the first weeks but when they did a check on phone calls made at the time RG supposedly made one to the CCCH, to PF, there has been no verification of any kind of phone calls. From RG or to RG Thursday or Friday.
I thought PB might have been able to get that info while a reporter. Wonder why Det. Matt Rickard has not come forward with that info, like he did with the "no fingerprints".

If I were PF or LG, I would have to pray that RG was alive and went for a walk. At least you would know at some time you might get a call or a visit. I would hold out hope for that visit.

If he committed suicide, you would never see him again and always question if there was some way you could have prevented it. Why didn't you recognize the signs of a suicidal person. And where is his body.

If he was murdered you would never see him again, maybe never find him, and you would always be looking around you, wondering who around you might have done something to him, who hated him enough to kill him, who was angry enough to do it, and how and where was it done and where is he buried or what happened to his body. Why did he not say he was being threatened and was worried about someone coming after him?

As a complete stranger to Ray Gricar, I don't know what to think.

I don't believe he committed suicide.

I don't want him to believe he is dead.
But I believe someone could have killed him. There are enough cases that can be linked to RG that did not go well for others, maybe locked up, spouses divorced them, rape cases thrown out, murderers charged but walked, druggies put away, rapists put away, and always someone letting it fester over the years and coming to a boiling point many years later.

I believe CF saw him in that parking lot on Friday in another car. I believe Judge Grine also saw him in that parking lot but for some reason has selective memory. One being, he knows RG was leaving, if he doesn't acknowledge seeing him for sure, then he doesn't know anything. Gets him off the hook of remaining silent. And maybe he does know more about the whole thing.

I believe someone helped him get a car, or he used someone else's. I believe the one woman in Lewisburg saw something but "doesn't want to get involved" due to knowing the person(s) and fearing retaliation.

I also believe he could have walked away. His finances don't add up, his daughter says it is no ones business how much money he has, and from talk around the courthouse, his attorney has made numerous out of country trips to a certain area. He has left PF with her home paid, a car paid for, and still having a job in the CCCH, although moving to a lower paying job bothers me. Mostly because if he moved her to that job because he was going to take her with him and idn't, it left her with less money.

Or was his taking her to his office to protect her from someone who was making threats to him and those threats included PF and LG?

So yes, I am torn with my thoughts. I prefer he walked away. I pray that is what he did. Now the wait goes on.

[J. J. in Phila]

[quote=J. J. in Phila;12156164]

When it comes to motivation, that is all you have. If Joe says, "I want to kill Mary," and Mary turns up murdered, that is enough to demonstrate motive.
quote]


JJ, that can not be true either. Hadn't Billy Joe Leathers told people in a bar that he "buried RG so deep no one will find him?" RG is no where to be found and BJL has committed suicide, so wouldn't that be enough to demonstrate a case? He had plenty of anger at RG for all the things being taken from him, that he blamed RG for. Of course it was all his actions that caused his down fall. Still he made statements and I had spoke to a woman who was in the bar when it was said.

First, I'm not too sure how much he RFG. He was very leniently treated with RFG dropping an attempted murder charge. Second, TG and the PSP attempted to find the person who claimed that and never did.

[Serendipitous1]

According to "Just Gricar", RG had "few real friends". So what are his "real friends" saying? Do we actually know who they are and what they are saying? Is Sloane a "real" friend? Or Buehner, or McKnight? How about Walker? Or Goodall? Or Patricia Fornicola? Or any other Gricar? What do they think about the possibility of Ray Gricar's would-be betrayal?

[Serendipitous1]

First, I'm not too sure how much he RFG. He was very leniently treated with RFG dropping an attempted murder charge. Second, TG and the PSP attempted to find the person who claimed that and never did.Actually, that would be incorrect...according to information conveyed to me by a reliable source years ago. And I have always found it interesting that LE went after JL immediately after the PSP-CIA unit met, after letting that particular case sit on idle. Just one of many oddities though...I can assure you.

[Serendipitous1]

Back to walkaway. What about this SS quote: "You're at a dead end. Every scenario is as likely as a next. Talking about it is like nails on a chalkboard. Trying to find a path of logic in this -- it's annoying and it's futile." How shall we reconcile this to alleged present assertions?

[sherrijean981]

[quote=sherrijean981;12163159]snipped

------- and still having a job in the CCCH, although moving to a lower paying job bothers me. Mostly because if he moved her to that job because he was going to take her with him and idn't, it left her with less money. [quote]



If RG knew about the 'move' to his office, the position of VA would not have been left open for months. Interviews would have already taken place, someone would have been hired and in position the day PF moved to clerk job. The way it played out in no way reflects his known way of handling such matters.
After he paid off her mortgage and purchased a new car, free and clear, and then was 'disappeared', where is the need for a lot of money? The biggest payments most people have are house and car payments.
JMO

PF might still have a car payment. She owns a Honda from what CF said about looking to see if it was RG in the different car in the parking lot and it didn't look like PF's car, a Honda. Also her car was sitting on the driveway when Cinderella and I were at her home, well, on the road in front of her house.

Someone had said on here previously that RG was the one who hired the people in his office. He had to have known she was coming to work there. If not, he must have had his head in a book or been sleeping more often than stated, on the job, if he wasn't aware of her coming to work in his office. He had to have taken applications and interviewed people, and made the decision. I also think something was going on in her previous position for him to move her out of it that fast and left the job opened. Then again, she could still have been doing that job until filled. No one has ever said that.

[sherrijean981]

SJ the lady in the bar did she actually hear BJL make the comment?


JJ and CB, I am sorry about my statement. I spoke to the woman's sister, and she said BJL was in the bar and said it in front of her sister. That sister and her husband have a used car lot on Rt 144 just outside Bellefonte, near Capparella's Furniture Store.

We had stopped to look at a truck on a spur of the minute visit, and she told me a lot of stuff about BJL and his Dad, Ray Gricar and Patty Fornicola (not spoken of very highly), and Det. Z, (very bad report on him and his actions as an officer).

As I don't know either the owners of the car lot, or her sister, I don't know if any of it was fact, but I reported what was said to me to TG, and told him where they lived. At that time he would have had the name from me too, but that has been a long time ago and I can't remember it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Back to walkaway. What about this SS quote: "You're at a dead end. Every scenario is as likely as a next. Talking about it is like nails on a chalkboard. Trying to find a path of logic in this -- it's annoying and it's futile." How shall we reconcile this to alleged present assertions?

First, I'm not familiar with SS saying that, but I am aware that SS has had the view for a while.

Second, I did see some flesh on the bone with the SS numbers.

Third, yes, I find it highly unusual that Mel Wiley was discussed in the office where JKA heard it (she thinks) at least three years after it happened and SS hears about it eight years after it happened. I also find it unusual that JKA, if it wasn't important, would mention it in the introduction of her pages. Why mention that one and not Carsey (who was the subject of a best selling book)?

[J. J. in Phila]

According to "Just Gricar", RG had "few real friends". So what are his "real friends" saying? Do we actually know who they are and what they are saying? Is Sloane a "real" friend? Or Buehner, or McKnight? How about Walker? Or Goodall? Or Patricia Fornicola? Or any other Gricar? What do they think about the possibility of Ray Gricar's would-be betrayal?

All accounts are that Sloane was a close friend. Buehner thinks it's murder. PEF expected asked him to call and still "holds out hope" that he'll come back. What's been reported, we know, for the purposes of the message board.

You said, "What do they think about the possibility of Ray Gricar's would-be betrayal?"

I'd like to know what "would-be betrayal?"

Whatever happened to RFG, I would not any possible scenario as a "betrayal," on RFG's part.

[Serendipitous1]

First, I'm not familiar with SS saying that, but I am aware that SS has had the view for a while.

Second, I did see some flesh on the bone with the SS numbers.

Third, yes, I find it highly unusual that Mel Wiley was discussed in the office where JKA heard it (she thinks) at least three years after it happened and SS hears about it eight years after it happened. I also find it unusual that JKA, if it wasn't important, would mention it in the introduction of her pages. Why mention that one and not Carsey (who was the subject of a best selling book)?Not sure what you mean by "SS numbers", but the rest was argumentatively countered...though now just vaporous wisps, unarchived and all too conveniently forgotten in some people's "modern" search for "the truth". Try again.

[Serendipitous1]

All accounts are that Sloane was a close friend. Buehner thinks it's murder. PEF expected asked him to call and still "holds out hope" that he'll come back. What's been reported, we know, for the purposes of the message board.

You said, "What do they think about the possibility of Ray Gricar's would-be betrayal?" I'd like to know what "would-be betrayal?" Whatever happened to RFG, I would not any possible scenario as a "betrayal," on RFG's part.You do not believe an intentional disappearance would be a betrayal of every familial relationship...every friendship...RG may have had? Explain this please.

[J. J. in Phila]

Not sure what you mean by "SS numbers", but the rest was argumentatively countered...though now just vaporous wisps, unarchived and all too conveniently forgotten in some people's "modern" search for "the truth". Try again.

Social Security numbers, "dead" SS numbers. Sloane noted that RFG had access to them.

Like I said, every account we have, and intimated by TG on more one occasion, was a close friend. The "Missed Leads" article is still up. PEF's comment at the anniversary, her first comments at the press conference, are at the Post Gazette. I believe her comments a month later are up at the CDT achieves. I believe the "split bar" comment is up as well. I really don't need to see that stuff again and again.

Maybe some of the "older" searcher were looking for something that was never there.

BTW: It still isn't enough for me. I care now about means, not motivation, because if means are not there a universe of motivation won't make a difference.

[Serendipitous1]

Social Security numbers, "dead" SS numbers. Sloane noted that RFG had access to them.

Like I said, every account we have, and intimated by TG on more one occasion, was a close friend. The "Missed Leads" article is still up. PEF's comment at the anniversary, her first comments at the press conference, are at the Post Gazette. I believe her comments a month later are up at the CDT achieves. I believe the "split bar" comment is up as well. I really don't need to see that stuff again and again.

Maybe some of the "older" searcher were looking for something that was never there.

BTW: It still isn't enough for me. I care now about means, not motivation, because if means are not there a universe of motivation won't make a difference.You can peddle your "means" approach all you want...and it does not amount to jack s__t. You have yet to establish a motive why RG would walk away from everything and everyone he ever knew and cared about. Try again.

[J. J. in Phila]

You can peddle your "means" approach all you want...and it does not amount to jack s__t. You have yet to establish a motive why RG would walk away from everything and everyone he ever knew and cared about. Try again.

It was P'gal, ironically, who posted a while back that motive comes after means and opportunity. If there is evidence of means, why RFG did it is secondary, because there would be evidence that he did walkaway.

I have several anyhow, not the least of which, is, he wanted to be in PB's words "be legend, ride off into the sunset. " That is one possibility; it is romantic, and ride in at dawn at some point after 4/15/05.

You never answered those three questions I posted, but I'll just ask two of them.

1. Did RFG ever claim he was sheltering assets, in case of a law suit?

2. Are there any assets, seemingly at least, unaccounted for?

Something tells me that you don't want an answer.

You didn't the one I ask of you:

You said, "What do they think about the possibility of Ray Gricar's would-be betrayal?"

I'd like to know what "would-be betrayal?"

[Cloudbuster]

In my heart and soul, I believe he is alive, and that might be just wishful thinking on my part," Sloane said. When told of the new information, Sloane conceded the disappearance is beginning to sound "like something he planned."
"But it just doesn't make sense though," Sloane said. "Why?"

When he bought his Mini Cooper, he paid cash and registered it in Fornicola's name. Zaccagni said Fornicola told him Gricar did this as a precaution in case he was ever sued for wrongful prosecution, or something of the sort, Zaccagni said.

Sloane, when told the state of Gricar's financial accounts, was stunned. Gricar was known as a frugal man who did not throw money around, he said.

"Wow," Sloane said.

"He should have had more money than that, I would think. He wasn't into investing. He wasn't very into 401(k)s or IRAs."

He said Sloane was interviewed for hours in the days after Gricar disappeared by a state police profiler, who later said Gricar likely committed suicide.He just said, 'I won't be here,' " Spotts said.

What he meant is not known. That was a time of year Gricar sometimes would vacation in Vermont, Sloane said.

Two close and longtime friends of the missing district attorney -- Ed Walker and Assistant District Attorney Steve Sloane, who is perhaps Gricar's best friend -- say they were never interviewed by Bellefonte police Officer Darrel Zaccagni, the lead investigator in the case. Zaccagni also never interviewed Gricar's co-workers in the courthouse or District Attorney's Office.

"I find that incredibly odd," Sloane said.

The men have never been asked for advice or their thoughts on Gricar's state of mind in the months and weeks leading up to his disappearance.

"I'm really surprised (Zaccagni) didn't talk to Steve," Walker said.

Zaccagni said conducting interviews of Sloane, Walker and a bevy of county workers likely would yield nothing. http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3802.html

Seems like SS went from suicide to alive with no known reason for walk away?

[Serendipitous1]

It was P'gal, ironically, who posted a while back that motive comes after means and opportunity. If there is evidence of means, why RFG did it is secondary, because there would be evidence that he did walkaway.

I have several anyhow, not the least of which, is, he wanted to be in PB's words "be legend, ride off into the sunset. " That is one possibility; it is romantic, and ride in at dawn at some point after 4/15/05.

You never answered those three questions I posted, but I'll just ask two of them.

1. Did RFG ever claim he was sheltering assets, in case of a law suit?

2. Are there any assets, seemingly at least, unaccounted for?

Something tells me that you don't want an answer.

You didn't the one I ask of you:

You said, "What do they think about the possibility of Ray Gricar's would-be betrayal?"

I'd like to know what "would-be betrayal?"You are living in a fantasy world. Means and opportunity were present. But the motive is lost amongst the man, his career, and his dedication to everything he held dear.

The answers to your 2 questions are no, not directly, and most certainly not that we have any direct knowledge of.

You do not believe an intentional disappearance would be a betrayal of every familial relationship...every friendship...RG may have had? Explain this please.

[J. J. in Phila]

In my heart and soul, I believe he is alive, and that might be just wishful thinking on my part," Sloane said. When told of the new information, Sloane conceded the disappearance is beginning to sound "like something he planned."
"But it just doesn't make sense though," Sloane said. "Why?"


It sounded to Sloane like something RFG had planned.


When he bought his Mini Cooper, he paid cash and registered it in Fornicola's name. Zaccagni said Fornicola told him Gricar did this as a precaution in case he was ever sued for wrongful prosecution, or something of the sort, Zaccagni said.


Even though the county has liability insurance.

Sloane, when told the state of Gricar's financial accounts, was stunned. Gricar was known as a frugal man who did not throw money around, he said.

"Wow," Sloane said.

"He should have had more money than that, I would think. He wasn't into investing. He wasn't very into 401(k)s or IRAs."

[qoute]
Seems like SS went from suicide to alive with no known reason for walk away?[/QUOTE]

It looks like he went from, I think he's out there, to it sounds like he planed it , to he should have had more money.

[J. J. in Phila]

You are living in a fantasy world. Means and opportunity were present.


Hypothetically means were present. Hypothetically, you could have driven him out of Lewisburg. Where is the actual evidence of it


But the motive is lost amongst the man, his career, and his dedication to everything he held dear.


The man liked to travel, his career was coming to an end, his dedication to what?


The answers to your 2 questions are no, not directly, and most certainly not that we have any direct knowledge of.


For the first, yes but indirectly, but it is supported . An asset, that he used almost exclusively, was in someone elses' name.

For the second I used the term "seemingly." Can you find an asset(s) RFG had that would explain the money?


You do not believe an intentional disappearance would be a betrayal of every familial relationship...every friendship...RG may have had? Explain this please.

RFG was an adult, he had no debt, no minor children or a spouse to support. I would call it an adult making a free will decision.

[UndertheRadar]

Local station has a new Gricar poll:

http://www.newsradio1390.com/votepoll

[Serendipitous1]

Hypothetically means were present. Hypothetically, you could have driven him out of Lewisburg. Where is the actual evidence of itThere would not be any if RG wanted it to be so.
The man liked to travel, his career was coming to an end, his dedication to what?LG, PF, good friends, career, duty, honor, reputation, self respect, legacy, ...
For the first, yes but indirectly, but it is supported. An asset, that he used almost exclusively, was in someone elses' name. For the second I used the term "seemingly." Can you find an asset(s) RFG had that would explain the money?Why people do certain things can be totally unrelated to the explanations given out. And I do not believe the public has heard a definitive statement regarding all of RG's possible assets. It would be interesting to know. But if we are to believe LE, RG's finances were checked out and nothing unusual was found.
RFG was an adult, he had no debt, no minor children or a spouse to support. I would call it an adult making a free will decision.I would call it depraved indifference.

[J. J. in Phila]

There would not be any if RG wanted it to be so.


I don't agree. It would impossible to do alone and if there was a helper, that would involve another person.


LG, PF, good friends, career, duty, honor, reputation, self respect, legacy, ...


Or he assigned becoming of higher importance. Career was basically over, minimal duties left, no dishonor, and he may have enhanced "reputation, self respect, legacy."


Why people do certain things can be totally unrelated to the explanations given out. And I do not believe the public has heard a definitive statement regarding all of RG's possible assets. It would be interesting to know. But if we are to believe LE, RG's finances were checked out and nothing unusual was found.

No forensic audit and bluntly, the assets do not match the known salary and depicted lifestyle.


I would call it depraved indifference.


I wouldn't. If I found out that RFG left voluntarily, I'd say, "Ray, I salute you. You're a smarter guy than I am." :)

[Serendipitous1]

<Snips>
Or he assigned becoming of higher importance. Career was basically over, minimal duties left, no dishonor, and he may have enhanced "reputation, self respect, legacy." If I found out that RFG left voluntarily, I'd say, "Ray, I salute you. You're a smarter guy than I am." :)WOWeeeWOW, you may want to rethink this position.

[J. J. in Phila]

WOWeeeWOW, you may want to rethink this position.

NOT IN THE LEAST!

RFG is a competent adult, and frankly does not owe anyone anything. All obligations were met, if he left voluntarily. He does not owe you, or me, or most if not all of the people mentioned, the time of day, if that was his choice on 4/15/05.

I would certainly have respect for anyone who was intelligent enough to confound the people that he has, to pass into legend, and to carry out such a brilliant plan, if that is what it was.

My major problem is that this my not be what it was.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm going to give an important caveat here. A number of people close to RFG think he walked away; they saw something in him that said to them, "Yeah, he'd do that."

That might speak to RFG's motivations, but that is not evidence that he did walk away. They may be accurately reporting his motivations, by someone motivated to walk away can still be murdered.



As for his reported assets, didn't Tony Gricar at some point say that the $100,000.00 figure was wrong? I don't recall if he ever specifically said how wrong or which way wrong.


Some posted that RFG had $100 K in a checking account and TG posted that he didn't in checking. Everything I've heard, the slightly over $100 K is accurate. I have not heard of any serious audit of his accounts for the five years prior RFG's disappearance. His salary as DA appeared in old copies of the Pennsylvania Manual, though I got the $129 K from a press story.

[Politigal]

For what it's worth (just about nothing), a lawyer I know in State College thinks Gricar walked away. She was/is(?) more than tangentially acquainted with him. Gricar's disappearance is not a topic that I bring up with anybody, so she's the only attorney whose opinion I know because she volunteered it during the course of an extended conversation.

As for his reported assets, didn't Tony Gricar at some point say that the $100,000.00 figure was wrong? I don't recall if he ever specifically said how wrong or which way wrong.

A former client of mine knew/knows(?) Gricar well. His descriptions of Gricar (again raised by him during the course of extended conversations) suggest to me that if Gricar had wanted to walk away he would be able to do it without leaving a trace (particularly a trace that the Bellefonte Police Department could find). He actually went so far as to suggest that if anybody would be smart enough to commit suicide without a trace, it would be Gricar.

Did either of these people offer an explanation or opinion as to WHY Gricar would do that?

[Serendipitous1]

PB (3/30/08, CDT Q&A): "I do not not see any of the three theories having advanced farther than the others. Police tell me the same thing." ...I could "argue convincingly, for and against, all three theories".

Maybe PB will catch up with this in his blog someday...but all I have seen thus far is walkaway...not suicide, not murder...walkaway.

PB (5/10/06, CDT Q&A): "There is no truth to that [large gap between earnings and deposits], investigators said. They went over Gricar's finances with a fine-toothed comb..." "All of Gricar's finances were accounted for and nothing seemed amiss. No money was being filtered away for perhaps an intentional disappearance."

Are we now to believe that MR has, in merely reviewing the file, formed a different opinion?

[gstickley]

Is MR still 'reading'??? :lol:

[Serendipitous1]

Is MR still 'reading'??? :lol:No idea...but twice this week PB has said that contemplating walkaway was the easiest. Well heck yeah, do 'easy'. Doing 'hard' hurts the brain.

[J. J. in Phila]

PB (3/30/08, CDT Q&A): "I do not not see any of the three theories having advanced farther than the others. Police tell me the same thing." ...I could "argue convincingly, for and against, all three theories".

Maybe PB will catch up with this in his blog someday...but all I have seen thus far is walkaway...not suicide, not murder...walkaway.



He did today.


PB (5/10/06, CDT Q&A): "There is no truth to that [large gap between earnings and deposits], investigators said. They went over Gricar's finances with a fine-toothed comb..." "All of Gricar's finances were accounted for and nothing seemed amiss. No money was being filtered away for perhaps an intentional disappearance."


I've not heard of an audit, nor of any expenditures. Have you?

[J. J. in Phila]

It matters little what PB or MR or attorney acquaintances 'think'.
Without a full investigation absent conflict of interest, guesses are all they offer, proving nothing.

IF a family member of mine disappeared would I want to take a poll on who 'guesses' what happened and be content with majority? or would I push for a full investigation? Wow.....now that's a hard choice....
NOT!!



I would certainly want their unbiased opinions and they would carry some weight.

[J. J. in Phila]

Is that something that can be done if his daughter is on his accounts with him? She had said at one time it was no ones business what was in his accounts.

TG has said that her comment didn't apply to LE. If she'd refuse upon request, that would be a different story, but in theory, it could be ordered by the courts or a grand jury.

[tonyGricar]

Is that something that can be done if his daughter is on his accounts with him? She had said at one time it was no ones business what was in his accounts.

Seriously? Still? In 2008? She was referring to the general public and attempts by reporters to publish financial specifics, not LE and their investigation.

LE has always had full access to his finances: BPD, PSP, FBI, NASA, PETA, FICA, whoever...

[UndertheRadar]

Seriously? Still? In 2008? She was referring to the general public and attempts by reporters to publish financial specifics, not LE and their investigation.

LE has always had full access to his finances: BPD, PSP, FBI, NASA, PETA, FICA, whoever...

PETA? They're too busy right now urging Ben and Jerry's to use human breast milk in ice cream to reduce the suffering of cows. :rolleyes:

[sherrijean981]

Seriously? Still? In 2008? She was referring to the general public and attempts by reporters to publish financial specifics, not LE and their investigation.

LE has always had full access to his finances: BPD, PSP, FBI, NASA, PETA, FICA, whoever...


I was simply asking a question about a procedure and what LG had said. JJ gave me my answer.

If my questions/statements are making you mad I wonder how everyone else is going to fare when you read the thousands of posts since you graced us with your presence.

Just remember I am not the bad guy and I am entitled to ask questions and make an opinion.

[tonyGricar]

If my questions/statements are making you mad I wonder how everyone else is going to fare when you read the thousands of posts since you graced us with your presence.

The only bothersome thing I've seen is revisionist history and rehashing of things that have been repeatedly corrected by people who are most definitely not newbies.

</gracing> :rolleyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

The only bothersome thing I've seen is revisionist history and rehashing of things that have been repeatedly corrected by people who are most definitely not newbies.

</gracing> :rolleyes:

TG, in all fairness, during SJ's time on this board, which roughly corresponds to mine, I think there was one reference by you about this from you, with a reference to Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I'm not sure the post exist anymore.

It was a question and one quickly and accurately answered.

[Serendipitous1]

The only bothersome thing I've seen is revisionist history and rehashing of things that have been repeatedly corrected by people who are most definitely not newbies.No doubt a circumstance most of us have found ourselves in, especially over time. It is not always easy to assimilate new information without wanting to reexamine the old. And there is an ever dwindling number of people here, who are interested enough to even try.

I hope you and your family are overcoming whatever difficulties apparently continue to befall you. Regards.

[Serendipitous1]

PB mentioned once that it [forensic audit] wasn't done on the Q and A site; he actually said, when asked what he'd do listed that as one of the two things he'd do if he was running the investigation.Actually, what PB said (Q&A, last March) was that he would have another forensic examination of RG’s finances done, by a different agency. Also according to PB (Q&A, 6/1/06), it was financial forensics experts from the FBI who went over RG’s finances the first time...and they had found nothing to indicate he was “shaving off a couple thousand here and there to fund a disappearance, or some secret, new life somewhere else." ;)

[J. J. in Phila]

Actually, what PB said (Q&A, last March) was that he would have another forensic examination of RG’s finances done, by a different agency. Also according to PB (Q&A, 6/1/06), it was financial forensics experts from the FBI who went over RG’s finances the first time...and they had found nothing to indicate he was “shaving off a couple thousand here and there to fund a disappearance, or some secret, new life somewhere else." ;)

The question is, how far did any checking go back? Three months? Five years? A decade? So far, other than checking current funds (as of 2005), I have not heard of any audit.

[Serendipitous1]

The question is, how far did any checking go back? Three months? Five years? A decade? So far, other than checking current funds (as of 2005), I have not heard of any audit.Ask the FBI. :shrug:

[J. J. in Phila]

Ask the FBI. :shrug:

I've actually been asking the reporter; so far, the answer has been don't know.

It is clear that LE did check recent credit card purchases (and, I'd guess [u]recent[/i] transactions in his accounts).

[Serendipitous1]

I've actually been asking the reporter; so far, the answer has been don't know. It is clear that LE did check recent credit card purchases (and, I'd guess [u]recent[/i] transactions in his accounts).The 'reporter' said financial forensics experts from the FBI went over RG’s finances. Is he now retracting from or modifying that position, based on MR's review (ala the 'fingerprints fiasco')? :shrug:

[J. J. in Phila]

The 'reporter' said financial forensics experts from the FBI went over RG’s finances. Is he now retracting from or modifying that position, based on MR's review (ala the 'fingerprints fiasco')? :shrug:

No, but I don't believe he actually has an answer to my question. Part of my question is time frame.

IF RFG walked away, the evidence does not support the premise that he planned and implemented that plan in the week leading up to 4/15/05.

[Serendipitous1]

No, but I don't believe he actually has an answer to my question. Part of my question is time frame. IF RFG walked away, the evidence does not support the premise that he planned and implemented that plan in the week leading up to 4/15/05.Well, PB gave 'Anonymous in Bellefonte' what certainly appeared to be THE definitive financial analysis answer to a walkaway question. He even responded on the same day the question was posed, if you can imagine that.

So, was he simply regurgitating the 'official response' back then? And is he now questioning that, or the ability of the FBI to understand what time frame to apply...or, perhaps, whether the FBI was ever involved at all in the financial analysis? Or is he now simply ignoring it, because it does not fit the other "evidence" of an intentional disappearance?

Do not feel obligated to answer, J.J. The questions are rhetorical...here. They are not for you to answer. We are still waiting for PB to get back to us...sometime...somewhere.

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, PB gave 'Anonymous in Bellefonte' what certainly appeared to be THE definitive financial analysis answer to a walkaway question. He even responded on the same day the question was posed, if you can imagine that.

So, was he simply regurgitating the 'official response' back then? And is he now questioning that, or the ability of the FBI to understand what time frame to apply...or, perhaps, whether the FBI was ever involved at all in the financial analysis? Or is he now simply ignoring it, because it does not fit the other "evidence" of an intentional disappearance?

Do not feel obligated to answer, J.J. The questions are rhetorical...here. They are not for you to answer. We are still waiting for PB to get back to us...sometime...somewhere.

I just posted the question on his blog, and have not yet gotten a response.

The was the question I asked on 9/29/08:

"Was it a true audit or just a review of his recent transactions?"

I have not gotten an answer.

No, I don't think that RFG could have moved a large sum of money in the week or the month before he disappeared, and not have it traced.

Now, there are a lot of questions:

1. What was the financial result of his c. 2000 divorce? Was he virtually without funds after that? The house he lived in was sold; did he receive an proceeds from that sale?

2. He had a car, I'd guess I'd classify it as somewhat flashy, from TG's description, prior to purchasing the Mini. He didn't have it on 4/15/05. Where there any proceeds from the disposition of that.

3. Did RFG have any outside sources of income, i.e. investments or inherited money?

4. Conversely were there any major disbursements that were not publicized? Did he give generously to charity? Did he have some bad investments?

Now, we, in the blogosphere, don't have accessed to this information and I think the family is completely justified in not telling us. The question is, did LE check this stuff? So far as I know, no, they have not under DZ.

[sherrijean981]

[quote=J. J. in Phila;12229778]

2. He had a car, I'd guess I'd classify it as somewhat flashy, from TG's description, prior to purchasing the Mini. He didn't have it on 4/15/05. Where there any proceeds from the disposition of that.

quote]


Did RG use his car as a trade-in on the Mini Cooper? If he used it as a trade it, was he at that point planning on leaving, free and clear of any responsiblites: no renewal on car, no up keep on car, no inspections on car, etc, etc. New car being in PF's name would now be her responsiblity.

If he did not use it as a trade, did he sell it, give it away, or put it in storage somewhere, to be used at a later date? Others thinking he no longer had that car?

[Serendipitous1]

<Snips>
I just posted the question on his blog, and have not yet gotten a response. The was the question I asked on 9/29/08: "Was it a true audit or just a review of his recent transactions?"

Now, we, in the blogosphere, don't have accessed to this information and I think the family is completely justified in not telling us. The question is, did LE check this stuff? So far as I know, no, they have not under DZ.Walkaway has been on the table since the beginning, along with the other possibilities. PB has said, on more than one occasion (including recently in his revamped blog), that RG's finances were checked out by the FBI and that there was nothing unusual found. Given that task, under those circumstances, I really do not see the FBI limiting its search in any way.

Now I know, just last Friday, PB said he has a theory about RG’s money...which he cannot lay out publicly yet (interesting teaser). But I also know we can ask all the questions we want, and have no recourse except to wait on some ‘restated’ official position concerning that FBI probe (ala the fingerprints) or on new information regarding RG’s finances.

[J. J. in Phila]

Walkaway has been on the table since the beginning, along with the other possibilities. PB has said, on more than one occasion (including recently in his revamped blog), that RG's finances were checked out by the FBI and that there was nothing unusual found. Given that task, under those circumstances, I really do not see the FBI limiting its search in any way.



The only thing that I saw reported was that the FBI was monitoring RFG's plastic. It has been revealed that they were not monitoring his bank accounts, as of 2006.


Now I know, just last Friday, PB said he has a theory about RG’s money...which he cannot lay out publicly yet (interesting teaser). But I also know we can ask all the questions we want, and have no recourse except to wait on some ‘restated’ official position concerning that FBI probe (ala the fingerprints) or on new information regarding RG’s finances.

What position is that? I've heard anyone saying **We've looked at RFG's bank accounts for the last five years,** or that they checked his divorce settlement in 2000-01.

SJ, the purchase of the Mini was listed as being in "cash." Money wise, it wouldn't make a great deal of difference if it was a trade in.

[puzzled]

I would not buythe walkaway theory if you iced it, put sprinkles on top and tucked into a beautiful pink box with a beautiful pink bow on top!

There is just no way that Ray would do that to the family that he dearly loves.

If the police would ever look at this case from the foul play angle and really put all the pieces together I think they would be able to solve it.

I think it is crucial that they interview everyone that he worked, with and all his friends, family and acquaintences.

Where the heck is Firefly right when I REALLY need him/her the most??

Firefly I have a very important question for you. I accidently left my favorite necklace in the whole world laying on the counter at the jewelry store on 9/23 while trying on other necklaces. The next day I discovered that it was not on my neck! It is a little yellow gold star- shaped diamond necklace that my husband gave me for Christmas on our first Christmas as husband and wife three years ago. I am devastated to say the least. The store has sent the video surveillance tapes to loss prevention so they can zoom in on the site where I left it. Three or four other people went to that same location in the store after I left it there. They are trying to figure out which one took it. They said that they will do everything they can to get it back for me. I have a lot of faith that it is going to come back to me soon. Even my magic 8 ball said without a doubt I will get it back. Can you please give me your opinion. It is VERY sentimental. I would give anything to get it back. I can't stop crying for very long. I feel like such an idiot! Way too much sadness in my life lately.:(

[sherrijean981]

The only thing that I saw reported was that the FBI was monitoring RFG's plastic. It has been revealed that they were not monitoring his bank accounts, as of 2006.



What position is that? I've heard anyone saying **We've looked at RFG's bank accounts for the last five years,** or that they checked his divorce settlement in 2000-01.

SJ, the purchase of the Mini was listed as being in "cash." Money wise, it wouldn't make a great deal of difference if it was a trade in.

Why not? I thought someone said it was also a sporty model car too? Even a nice looking sporty car could bring the payment down on the Mini Cooper, and it was said RG was frugal, and trading would make sense.

But even if he didn't trade it on the Mini, what happened to that car? Did he sell it? Give it away? Or was it in storage, waiting for RG to retire or for RG ro make his life decision? Where did that car go? Could that have been the means to his ride out of town?

JJ, You have to be getting the point to this question. The means to get out of town??!!

[J. J. in Phila]

Why not? I thought someone said it was also a sporty model car too? Even a nice looking sporty car could bring the payment down on the Mini Cooper, and it was said RG was frugal, and trading would make sense.


Assets. Let's assume that RFG paid for the car in cash and it cost $24 K. He loses $24 K, but sells the other car for $10 K. His net assets have decreased by $14K.

RFG trades in the other car, for $10$K. He only has to pay $14K. His assets stay the same.


But even if he didn't trade it on the Mini, what happened to that car? Did he sell it? Give it away? Or was it in storage, waiting for RG to retire or for RG ro make his life decision? Where did that car go? Could that have been the means to his ride out of town?

JJ, You have to be getting the point to this question. The means to get out of town??!!

It would have to have been re-registered and in the Lewisburg area; it's likely that it would be easily traceable.

[sherrijean981]

Assets. Let's assume that RFG paid for the car in cash and it cost $24 K. He loses $24 K, but sells the other car for $10 K. His net assets have decreased by $14K.

RFG trades in the other car, for $10$K. He only has to pay $14K. His assets stay the same.



It would have to have been re-registered and in the Lewisburg area; it's likely that it would be easily traceable.


I am not understanding your deductions above. Either way he is paying $14,00, whether he pays the $24000 first and gets $10000 for the car or if he traded it with $10000 down and paid $14,000. Either way he is spending $14000 for the Mini Cooper.

And we did discussed using cash to pay for a car. By law the dealership is supposed to report a large sale of a car with cash payment. How did he bypass that? It was also said previously that he could have used a certified check, etc.

I just would like to know what happened to that other car? Has it ever been said what he did with it? And the renewal on that car's registration might have just been done so he might have had up to a year to use it.
Was that an overlook on LE or was that also checked out?

[J. J. in Phila]

I am not understanding your deductions above. Either way he is paying $14,00, whether he pays the $24000 first and gets $10000 for the car or if he traded it with $10000 down and paid $14,000. Either way he is spending $14000 for the Mini Cooper.


Because I've kind of assumed he's paid, hypothetically, $24,000. I'm trying to account for assets. The price range was actually between $18 and $26 K.


And we did discussed using cash to pay for a car. By law the dealership is supposed to report a large sale of a car with cash payment. How did he bypass that? It was also said previously that he could have used a certified check, etc.


"Cash" could include a cashier's check and even a cashier's check with a trade in. He didn't acquire a debt to purchase the Mini.

If he didn't dispose of the other car and it is missing, that's big, but I'd guess that would have been in the PennDOT database.

[Cloudbuster]

I would not buythe walkaway theory if you iced it, put sprinkles on top and tucked into a beautiful pink box with a beautiful pink bow on top!

There is just no way that Ray would do that to the family that he dearly loves.

If the police would ever look at this case from the foul play angle and really put all the pieces together I think they would be able to solve it.

I think it is crucial that they interview everyone that he worked, with and all his friends, family and acquaintences.

Where the heck is Firefly right when I REALLY need him/her the most??

Firefly I have a very important question for you. I accidently left my favorite necklace in the whole world laying on the counter at the jewelry store on 9/23 while trying on other necklaces. The next day I discovered that it was not on my neck! It is a little yellow gold star- shaped diamond necklace that my husband gave me for Christmas on our first Christmas as husband and wife three years ago. I am devastated to say the least. The store has sent the video surveillance tapes to loss prevention so they can zoom in on the site where I left it. Three or four other people went to that same location in the store after I left it there. They are trying to figure out which one took it. They said that they will do everything they can to get it back for me. I have a lot of faith that it is going to come back to me soon. Even my magic 8 ball said without a doubt I will get it back. Can you please give me your opinion. It is VERY sentimental. I would give anything to get it back. I can't stop crying for very long. I feel like such an idiot! Way too much sadness in my life lately.:(

Puzzled if you join this link you can find Firefly in there usually in the evening hours.
http://www.psychicguild.com/chat/index.php
Firefly would like to be able to work with the family. So he can confirm his findings. I don't think Tony would be interested. It's sad that Barbra Gray is not available, I think she would be interested.

[sherrijean981]

Everyone keeps saying he wouldn't walk away from his retirement funds. From watching what my sister is going through in her divorce and the retirement issues, retirements are part of a divorce package and can be attached at time of retirement.

He was divorced from 2 women, and he had over 30 years of retirement as a county employee in OH and PA. I don't know how much that was but if his divorce for one or both included a piece of that retirement, he wasn't going to get much of it anyways. He could very well have been putting money away in a secret fund, getting what he would have received through retirement in another type of fund. His ex's might be the ones getting what is there now.

I can't name names but over the last 3.5 years I have talked with many from Bellefonte/Centre County and walkaway is the most stated reason of what happened to him.

[Cloudbuster]

The key to a walk away resides upon whosaw Ray at Raystown Lake on April 14, 2005? If Ray was musing for a place out of the way to stage his disappearance, then suddenly someone who he knew saw him and he knew it, then it's OPPS I need a new location.

My new location must be out of the way from being known. My new location must contain a body of water as Raystown lake did. I want my disappearance to contain the evidence that it could point to 2 theories. I know I was seen at Raystown the day before so what could I do to help smooth that over? I will take the laptop as a ruse to insure that folks think that someone got me for the information on that laptop.

1.) I (RG) covered suicide by leaving my car by a body of water. That will line up with similarity to my brothers suicide.
2.) I covered foul play by using my laptop as a ruse.
3.) I haven't delibertly covered walk away because I don't want it to point in that direction. I covered my basics I called PF. Now everything points to foul play or suicide.

Problem is where am I and motive of why?
Problem is a new identity is illegal to do.
Problem I broke a law by trashing the laptop.
Problem do I let PF wondering forever and ruin her life?
Problem do I not ever need to speak to Lara again?
Problem do I not need my 30 year pension?
Problem do I have enough funds to carry me till death?
Problem how do I get out of Lewisburg?
Problem how much does my antique collection mean to me?

[Cloudbuster]

more problems: Do I need health insurance at my age?
Do I let LE spend unnessary funds looking for me?
Was this the Ray nobody knew? Or is it saying foul play because this was not the way he was?

[J. J. in Phila]

RFG did have some discussions with Sloane about the O'Kicki "departure."

http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/6371#comment-7788

[Serendipitous1]

RFG did have some discussions with Sloane about the O'Kicki "departure."
http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/6371#comment-7788"In my mind I'm goin' to Carolina":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jLpoPrVfjU

[J. J. in Phila]

"In my mind I'm goin' to Carolina":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jLpoPrVfjU

Or "In my mind I'm goin' to Slovenia?" I'd prefer to see if there is evidence that he'd got out of Lewisburg. If not, this just becomes massive coincidence.

[Serendipitous1]

Or "In my mind I'm goin' to Slovenia?" I'd prefer to see if there is evidence that he'd got out of Lewisburg. If not, this just becomes massive coincidence.Because PB has fallen into your trap, your stance is the single, 'most hugest' block toward any hope of an online solution to Ray Gricar's disappearance. Congratulations...you must be very proud. Pardon me if I search viable alternatives.

[J. J. in Phila]

Because PB has fallen into your trap, your stance is the single, 'most hugest' block toward any hope of an online solution to Ray Gricar's disappearance. Congratulations...you must be very proud. Pardon me if I search viable alternatives.

It's not my trap, I can assure you of that.

I am, however, willing to look at the possibility and not fall into the **RFG is a "cad" if he chose to walk away.**

So far the, "viable alternative" seems to be a crime with no evidence and no witnesses.

Your "online solution" will be as successful as your "political solution." We can't solve it here, but someone might ask the right question.

[J. J. in Phila]

S1, I said this a long time ago. We have one needle and three haystacks. We have no idea where the needle is, but you claim we shouldn't be looking in one of those haystacks.

Haystack #1: Suicide. We'll 3.5+ years and no body have reduced the size of that haystack.

Haystack #2: Murder. Hasn't been reduced, but there is no evidence it's in there. We run the metal detector over it and nothing happens.

Haystack #3: Walkaway. Well, we can run the metal detector over it, and it goes off. Is it detecting the needle? Maybe. Maybe it's just a piece of aluminum foil. If we look, we can see if it really is the needle. If it isn't the needle we can abandon the Haystack #3 and look at Haystack #2.

[J. J. in Phila]

I've been trying to develop a witness list:

4/15/05 in or near Lewisburg

1. Woman at Museum 12:00 Noon, reported Centre Daily Times (CDT)

2. McKnight’s witness, c. 5:00 PM, includes Mini, CDT

3. Witnesses, Mini being moved in lot, c. 5:30-6:30 PM (multiple), CDT

4. Alvey, Remember When owner, in SoS, in the evening (after 6:00 PM), possibly 4/16/05, reported Daily Collegian (DC).

4/16/05 in Bellefonte

1. Bennett, lunchtime, CDT

2. Workers, 2, saw RFG at the SoS, just after lunch, CDT

Notice the gap.

PEF got the call at c. 11:12 AM. RFG could have been 30-50 minutes out of Lewisburg. About 40 minutes later, there is a witness report of him in Lewisburg, then nothing. Then, we have at least 4 witness or about an hour and a half, between 5:00 PM and 6:30 PM.

I've though that it could be possible that the 4/16 witnesses had the wrong day and actually saw RFG on 4/15. If that's the case, there still about a 4.5 hour gap. I've not included Fenton/Grine, but that could partly explain the gap.

[J. J. in Phila]

4/16/o5 should be in Lewisburg.

[Cloudbuster]

What ever happened to Ray's car? The one that he drove before he bought PF the mini cooper? Was it in storage?

[J. J. in Phila]

What ever happened to Ray's car? The one that he drove before he bought PF the mini cooper? Was it in storage?


I assume it was disposed of.

[sherrijean981]

I assume it was disposed of.


I know I have asked that same question but disposed of how? Trade in? Sold privately? Given to a relative/friend? Put in storage as CB asked?

Usually men know the makes of cars so I find it odd the only description of the car in the CCCH parking lot is that the car was metallic, silver? Did Judge Grine ever say what make, year it was?

[J. J. in Phila]

I know I have asked that same question but disposed of how? Trade in? Sold privately? Given to a relative/friend? Put in storage as CB asked?

Usually men know the makes of cars so I find it odd the only description of the car in the CCCH parking lot is that the car was metallic, silver? Did Judge Grine ever say what make, year it was?

I can ask PB. He thought that it would have come up if LE PennDOT records.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'll raise the likelihood of the Wilkes-Barre sighting to be accurate to 60%. Now, it is more likely than not.

[Chump#7]

I suppose this is good a thread as any...

The question has been asked, "How did RG get out of Lewisburg?". I'd like to pursue this question one thing at a time and see whether we stumble upon something that LE may not have checked out.

One method would have been to rent a car. In order to rent a car you just need a drivers license and a credit card. Obviously, in this case, in another person's name.

Credit card number's are extremely easy to get. I would imagine the Courthouse is full of them. Reservations for car rental can be done online (laptop) as well as over the phone. I'll elaborate more if needed, but more often than not fraudulent charges are not ever pursued by LE. The cardholders issuing bank simply returns the funds to account balance and may chargeback the merchant who processed the card. Were instances of chargebacks ever asked of Lewisburg car rental businesses? Not in Ray's name, of course. It may have been until at least May before the cardholder even noticed to initiate the chargeback.

Fake drivers license. First I was like, "College town, duh!" and "Those busted for it would have been easily accessible to Ray." But this crossed my mind: To get a real authentic PA drivers license, where do you go? The DMV. Where is the DMV? When I was there it was in Pleasant Gap, off of 26 not too far from the 144 intersection one would use to get to 192 in Centre Hall. And picture ID's were only done on one day of the week as recall - Thursdays. Did LE look into photo ID's at the DMV. Did PA have the technology at that time to capture photos taken in their computer system?

Busy now, more later... Discuss.

[J. J. in Phila]

The have the technology, I think, but it could have been an out of state license.

Potential methods were laid out here:

http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/6527

The question has been ask, but the answer has not been forthcoming.

[Chump#7]

The have the technology, I think, but it could have been an out of state license.

Potential methods were laid out here:

http://community.centredaily.com/?q=node/6527

The question has been ask, but the answer has not been forthcoming.

Yeah, I just wanted to expand on that with specific things that could have been checked, but may have not been (chargebacks). This is a solo version, of course (with problems), but a helper would be easier.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'll start by saying "could" does NOT mean "did."

Yeah, I just wanted to expand on that with specific things that could have been checked, but may have not been (chargebacks). This is a solo version, of course (with problems), but a helper would be easier.

I'll give you a better one. RFG may have had assess to "dead" Social Security Numbers. He could have developed a whole new identity with that information. He could have had a real credit card.

The thing is, if he did all this solo, documentation is going to exist someplace, with his handwriting on it.

Now, if LE checked or checks, and the result is negative, it can debunk the entire walkaway scenario.

[Chump#7]

I'll start by saying "could" does NOT mean "did."



I'll give you a better one. RFG may have had assess to "dead" Social Security Numbers. He could have developed a whole new identity with that information. He could have had a real credit card.

The thing is, if he did all this solo, documentation is going to exist someplace, with his handwriting on it.

Now, if LE checked or checks, and the result is negative, it can debunk the entire walkaway scenario.

It could debunk a solo walkaway theory, but with a helper... legitimately obtaining a rent-a-car, etc....

The biggest hurdle I see with the solo theory is not "How did he get out of Lewisburg?", but "How did he get out of the parking lot?" - without leaving a scent trail the dogs could follow to where he obtained the vehicle for the ol' switcheroo...

Now with a helper?

To rule out the rent-a-car anyway, LE could start with cars rented in the entire Central PA area (or further - not a tall task) for that entire week starting with a description along the lines of the Fenton sighting. And of those, were any obtained by a known RG acquaintance?

[J. J. in Phila]

The dog could have detected the freshest trail. It's possible that the scent was laid on 4/16/05 or that the last time RFG was in the parking lot was at about 6:30 PM on 4/15/05.

There are things that can cause a trail to fade naturally, even direct sunlight.

So far as I know, the only possibility that was checked was if RFG rented a car under a known credit card.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, let me offer some insight, although I know you've stated you "question" my science and you never want to believe me anyway.

The "freshest scent" thing is relevant when you've got a true tracking situation, i.e., no way to provide a scent sample to the dog and a true tracking dog is following footsteps and ground scent.

That's not what we have in the RG case. The dogs have a scent sample from RG.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, as you are well aware, such things as sunlight can affect scent detection. So can surface or vehicular traffic. So can, potentially, the temperament of the dog on that day, e.g. is the dog tired.

Now here is a sight dealing with missing pets being traced, where there would be a scent to be collected.

http://www.missingpetpartnership.org/petdetective-scent.php

Now the length of time is variable, according to this site. I'll be happy to look at your link, if you provide one.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, I've given you up-to-date empirical evidence from tests conducted by the FBI, showing that anecdotal evidence such as you provide is not credible.

You ignore the empirical evidence and twist what I give you from the links.

I'll never forget giving you a link whose underlying premise, stated multiple times, was the ease of scent transferability.

You reported back to the board that the ONLY thing the link said about scent transfer was how difficult it was to transfer scent.

Not playing your link game.

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, you should read it, because you would notice something else.

Scent, the skin rafts, tend to collect in grass, more so than pavement or gravel. There is a grass parking strip by the parking lot. No scent. That is unusual, if the scent got into the lot by pooling.

I'm glad to to know that part of your agenda isn't looking at evidence.

Same link: http://www.missingpetpartnership.org/petdetective-scent.php

Now, UTR, I'm still willing to look at yours.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, I read your link. It's outdated information, even though it's from 2007. I don't know how hard the author(s) looked when they say the oldest documented scent trail was 13 days old, considering the FBI has a documented scent trail on pavement that was six months old (2004). They have plenty of experiments documenting that human scent is far more durable than the anecdotal evidence (such as your article is based on) suggests. I've given you that link half a dozen times before.

That's not to suggest that experimental conditions always mimic field conditions. However, as I've pointed out before, the FBI parameters for a dog fit for police criminal investigations require that he/she demonstrate the ability to follow trails seven days old. Do you think the PSP sent three novice dogs with novice handlers and no certifications to work the RG case?

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I'd like to see the link to that, TIA.

Now, whether or not the record is broken, I think it is clear that the scent could be undetectable at points, as it was in the Peterson case. Even though the dog was very good and could detect and follow the scent for tens of miles, for some reason, it couldn't detect the scent from the house to warehouse where the boat was stored.

That is my point. For some reason, that occurs naturally, a dog might not be able to detect scent. It could be the dog being tired or the scent being destroyed, but it does happen.

Valentin's dog, Merlin, tried to track Laci Peterson's scent on Dec. 26 from the Modesto home where prosecutors allege Scott Peterson killed her. Though Merlin soon lost her scent, the dog initially ran in the middle of the road — rather than on the sidewalk where a person would walk — leading Valentin to conclude Laci Peterson left in a vehicle.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/022504_fivemonths_ap.html

I'm stating it is possible and citing an example (brought to you by your friends at CourtTV).

[UndertheRadar]

Yep, JJ, Laci left in a vehicle.

1) Merlin had only previously ever done three practice vehicle trails and had no successful field vehicle trails under his belt. Still he managed to trail Laci's scent for more than 20 miles. Credit where credit is due for a green dog.

2) Valentin and Merlin were pulled off by LE where he "lost" the scent. You know full well Valentin testified she had other things she wanted to try to re-start him, but LE declined.

As for the link, why?

1) You've had it half a dozen times and you've just ignored every fact in it.

2) What would we expect? More mis-translation, like the time you read about the STU-100, developed so that scent could be collected without destroying evidence? Your translation: developed because scent is sooooooo difficult to transfer. More mistranslation like because human scent is so easily transferred = in JJ land human scent is very difficult to transfer?

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, of course you don't provide a link, because you don't really have anything.

I'm not being critical of Merlin or her handler; the dog did a great job later. But for some reason, Merlin couldn't do it that day.

[J. J. in Phila]

It could debunk a solo walkaway theory, but with a helper... legitimately obtaining a rent-a-car, etc....

The biggest hurdle I see with the solo theory is not "How did he get out of Lewisburg?", but "How did he get out of the parking lot?" - without leaving a scent trail the dogs could follow to where he obtained the vehicle for the ol' switcheroo...

Now with a helper?

To rule out the rent-a-car anyway, LE could start with cars rented in the entire Central PA area (or further - not a tall task) for that entire week starting with a description along the lines of the Fenton sighting. And of those, were any obtained by a known RG acquaintance?


There is an easier way to factor out rental cars. RFG would not return the car to the same rental place.

When I rent a car, it's usually because my car is down. So, I rent it locally and return it at the same place. I'd expect that the bulk of rentals were returned to the same place; those (except with a helper) can be factored out.

[Serendipitous1]

There is an easier way to factor out rental cars. RFG would not return the car to the same rental place.

When I rent a car, it's usually because my car is down. So, I rent it locally and return it at the same place. I'd expect that the bulk of rentals were returned to the same place; those (except with a helper) can be factored out.Lots of confiscated cars around...some of which apparently get "lost" (along with the paperwork). I imagine taking delivery could pose some logistical problems (e.g. delays). And I am supposing no one would want to volunteer knowledge of such activity. Just a mini-conspiratorial, Friday morning musing.

[J. J. in Phila]

Lots of confiscated cars around...some of which apparently get "lost" (along with the paperwork). I imagine taking delivery could pose some logistical problems (e.g. delays). And I am supposing no one would want to volunteer knowledge of such activity. Just a mini-conspiratorial, Friday morning musing.

And there would probably be both paperwork and logistics problems.

Hypothetically, assume that RFG got a car in State College, . Okay, he drive that car to Lewisburg and park it on the street a few days before 4/14. How does he get back to Bellefonte. Sure, possibly, he walk to State College, but once he parks the Lewisburg, he can't get back to Bellefonte, unless he rents a car or has a "helper" pick him up.

If he rents it, under his own name, there is a record; it there is a "helper," that person might be unaware and come forward.

Second problem, RFG has been known to exceed the speed limit slightly (92 in a 45 MPH zone). :biggrin: If he's pulled over, even for something routine, or if an alert police officer recognizes the face, they will check the registration. A very big red flag will pop up.

The car needs seemingly correct paperwork. (Spoken like an ex-bureaucrat.)

[Chump#7]

Were there any auctions of such cars (the confiscated type they dump off at these things) around the Lewisburg area at/around that time? Or... any area, really. Just covering everything.

[J. J. in Phila]

Were there any auctions of such cars (the confiscated type they dump off at these things) around the Lewisburg area at/around that time? Or... any area, really. Just covering everything.

That I don't know, but there would be a paper trail. For those, you generally have to drive off with the car.

Anything like that should be in the PennDOT database.

[Cloudbuster]

And what if Ray bought one of those missing 43 cars from the drug bust? All records was destroyed remember?

[Cloudbuster]

And what if Ray bought one of those missing 43 cars from the drug bust? All records was destroyed remember?


What one man can do another can do. The truck went on a vacation to Canada. If RG got a car thru them how would ya possibly track that when they can't find all the vechicles?
38 of them still missing.

[Serendipitous1]

That I don't know, but there would be a paper trail. For those, you generally have to drive off with the car.

Anything like that should be in the PennDOT database.You really cannot think outside of the box, can you? There are several ways around PennDOT/paperwork.

[J. J. in Phila]

You really cannot think outside of the box, can you? There are several ways around PennDOT/paperwork.

Not that many, and they are not easily done. One guy just got arrested for doing it around here.

[Serendipitous1]

Not that many, and they are not easily done. One guy just got arrested for doing it around here.Was he wearing a blue fleece jacket, blue jeans and sneakers? I think I saw him...smoking cigarettes (badly), and watching captain kangar-wahoo.... Look, I am with PB and you. Let MM and the vaunted BPD to lay out the real "facts"...not just the "20/20 Vision" tripe.

[J. J. in Phila]

Was he wearing a blue fleece jacket, blue jeans and sneakers? I think I saw him...smoking cigarettes (badly), and watching captain kangar-wahoo.... Look, I am with PB and you. Let MM and the vaunted BPD to lay out the real "facts"...not just the "20/20 Vision" tripe.


Ironically, 20/20 Vision was one point where we disagreed, though it had more substance than I thought. It was a good read, at least.

[ladyheartfixer]

Ironically, 20/20 Vision It was a good read, at least.


bought it, tried to read it...but just couldn't get into it...maybe I'll bundle up in front of the fireplace tomorrow night and give it another try....

[J. J. in Phila]

bought it, tried to read it...but just couldn't get into it...maybe I'll bundle up in front of the fireplace tomorrow night and give it another try....

It's good, but you have to have a taste for science fiction.

You might look up Futility, The Wreck of the Titan, though not read it. There are literary coincidences.

[Serendipitous1]

It's good, but you have to have a taste for science fiction.

You might look up Futility, The Wreck of the Titan, though not read it. There are literary coincidences.I am more into the post-disappearance stuff. Try "The Deep Blue Alibi", by Paul Levine (a fellow PSU alum, J.J.)...just for starters.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, re your post #473:

What do you mean I don't have anything?

Not only have I posted the link a half dozen times.

You have already read the article.

It's the very one which starts with the premise that human scent is easily transferable and therefore cannot be used as primary evidence.

The one you read and claimed it said nothing about scent transfer except how difficult it was to transfer human scent. The very one where you totally garbled the reason for the invention of the scent collection device. You even kept posting links to the photos of the device, for some odd reason.

BTW, in addition to the six month old trail, the article also included a case study of a dog who immediately and successfully followed a seventeen day old trail, in 100 degree heat in an urban setting (metro station, parking garage, etc.).

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, this is not being used as primary evidence. It is used to support the witness reports. The witnesses say RFG was there and, lo and behold, his scent is there as well.

You are treating both the scent and witnesses as if they exist in a vacuum; they do not.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, I keep asking you to show us even one witness who was in a spot where there was also scent--but away from the area where the car was.

That's the only way the scent would back up a witness report, or vice versa.

So far, you haven't given us a single example.

Provide that, and it changes the complexion of things.

Without that, it's still maybe RG was in Lewisburg, maybe not.

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, the 3-4 witnesses put him in the area where the car was, in the car, so it's a bit of a moot point.

[UndertheRadar]

Three-four witnesses in the area where the car was don't help back up the scent evidence, JJ.

Give us even one example of scent+witness away from the area of the car.

Inside the SOS.

Down by the river.

Anywhere but where the car was.

Surely you must understand why.

[J. J. in Phila]

Well, in that time period, we only have one, that I didn't list.

It is sufficient to demonstrate that the dog found scent in the same place that three witnesses saw him.

[UndertheRadar]

Who and where?

Where did the dogs detect the scent away from the area the car had been?

[J. J. in Phila]

Parking lot, 3-4 witnesses.

Look, basically, this little discovery has to be reported if a case ever came to trial. If a prosecutor were stupid enough to claim that RFG was dead by this point, the police would have to give this to the defense.

It creates more than reasonable doubt that he was alive at that point. As soon as anyone says even "Maybe he was alive in Lewisburg," the reasonable doubt threshold can never be crossed. It's gone, and it was gone in the end of the third week of April 2005. You'd basically need a time stamped video tape of RFG being murdered before that to refute it, maybe.

This doesn't even take into account Fenton or Grine as witnesses, or the Wilkes-Barre witnesses. It's a completely unwinnable case.

If a prosecutor would stand up in court and say, all these witnesses, including an ADA, a police officer, several business owners, and who knows who else, are wrong, the dog handler is wrong, and possibly the President Judge of Centre County, a former police officer is wrong, how far do you really think the case will get? Seriously.

[Politigal]

Who and where?

Where did the dogs detect the scent away from the area the car had been?

Obviously, he can't give you an answer to this.

[J. J. in Phila]

Obviously, he can't give you an answer to this.


Try the 3-4 witnesses who saw him in the parking lot. I gave you an answer, you just don't like it.

[UndertheRadar]

Obviously, he can't give you an answer to this.

Yep. That's precisely why I asked it. I figured he couldn't.

And he clearly doesn't understand that parking lot doesn't equal away from the area where the car was. The car was in the freaking parking lot.

He's got nothing. Nothing that confirms RG was in Lewisburg. Nothing that even brings it close to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level JJ claims.

All we've ever heard from the investigation on the issue (publicly) is that there's no confirmation RG was ever in Lewisburg and that LE was only working on that assumption. And that's a shame, since confirmation would narrow things considerably.

[J. J. in Phila]

What part of three witnesses (possibly a 4th) seeing him in the parking lot, in the Mini, at the same time, and then the scent was found to be present, don't you understand?

Yes, UTR, it is beyond a reasonable doubt. That would be sufficient to convict, if the crime was that RFG parked the Mini.

The problem, however, isn't that. It is the claim that RFG was dead prior to that. There is now probably enough evident to create reasonable doubt that RFG was dead on 4/18/05.

[UndertheRadar]

What part of Seitz' testimony did you not understand?

What part of scent theory science do you not understand?

Wait . . . don't bother answering. It's pretty clear.

[J. J. in Phila]

It is pretty clear that you are trying, and failing, to push your agenda.

The question is, are these things, scent evidence and witness testimony admissible. The answer is, yes.

Theory about some possible million to one problem is not evidence.

Face it, UTR, there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard needed, to show RFG was in the parking lot after 5:00 PM, on 4/15/05.

There is certainly more that reasonable doubt that RFG was dead on 4/17/05.

[Serendipitous1]

Drizzle drazzle drozzle drome-- Time for this one to come home!

My incantation for this evening. It should work...I paid good money for it!

~ Mr. Wizard (not to be confused with "Mr. Wizard").